|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 17, 2009 6:12:07 GMT -5
I went over to Steve's last night. Steve has the stereo box. He also has decent equipment which includes 2 CD players going into the same amplifier and the ability to switch between them. He was able to cue up both remasters and original CD's to start at the same time and switch between them.
We listened to: It won't be long Money A Hard Day's Night If I fell And I love her Nowhere Man Taxman Eleanor Rigby And your bird can sing Magical Mystery Tour I am the walrus Strawberry Fields Forever Baby you're a rich man
Maybe a couple of others, too - I din't take notes.
I felt that was probably representative of the entire catalogue.
Let me say at this point that my somewhat curmudgeonly attitude over the remasters involves me, to some extent, playing devil's advocate (which is not to say that the opinions I've voiced haven't been honestly held) - having not heard any of the remastered stuff beforehand I really wanted it to zing out of the speakers at me. I'm mean, REALLY.
It didn't.
There were some tracks where I could hear a significant improvement in quality, particularly with the bass end beefed up and a fuller, rounder sound overall with some tinniness stripped away from the treble end, particularly on the older tracks. Conversely, there were other tracks where we couldn't tell any difference - we thought we could hear a difference, but it was actually simply a matter of volume: when we compensated for the different volume level on the remaster there was virtually no difference in quality at all.
I confess to being disappointed. I was trying very hard not to let what I was hearing get coloured by what I feared were preconceptions, and I hope I was able to be sufficiently fair minded for that not to happen. And I really wanted there to be a big difference - I wanted to be wrong! But if a Beatles track came up on the car radio while I was driving, there is absolutely no way I would be able to tell if it was a remaster or not and, even in those cases where the difference was most notable, it wasn't of sufficient magnitude to justify me shelling out to buy these albums for a fourth time.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 17, 2009 6:27:09 GMT -5
Well, vectis, I don't know what you expected to discover here. I mean, it's not like you're going to suddenly hear subliminal messages or something in the songs. You're not suddenly going to hear new instruments that were buried for decades until now and which you never knew existed, or hear George Martin humming along in the background. The bottom line is these CDs simply sound better than the old 1987 ones, and that's that. If you don't care enough to upgrade, you don't care. It's your choice. I mean really -- what do you expect to be so radically different?
Honestly, I think you are trying to convince yourself that re-acquiring these is not required. I experienced something similar one time in 1987 with a friend who refused to buy his first CD player (when CDs were just becoming more popular). I had just bought my first one, and I was all excited because I'd just got George' CLOUD NINE album on Compact Disc, and I invited him over to hear the amazing clarity difference between the vinyl and the CD. This friend was always tight with a dollar (I'm not saying that THIS aspect is you, vectis - I'm just saying this guy was cheap). I'll never forget this guy sitting on the floor, listening to the speakers as this super-clear CD played on, and he was defiantly playing faux drums and guitar as he listened -- which was his way of trying to "show me" that he heard the exact same things he already knew from his CLOUD NINE vinyl version, and that there were no differences. He laughed at my tiny CD artwork, bragging how his LP cover had such "BIGGER PICTURES AND ARTWORK". Well, this guy eventually caved in and bought a CD player, then upgraded all his vinyl to CDs -- including George's CLOUD NINE album! ;D
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 17, 2009 15:02:57 GMT -5
Well, you're pretty much right, Joe, except where you're not! Thing is I wasn't trying to convince myself that reacquiring them wasn't required - exactly the opposite, in fact. I was hoping, really badly, that they sounded so obviously better that that improvement would sing out to me, saying "See? Now you have to go and buy us!" But they didn't. You say "The bottom line is these CDs simply sound better than the old 1987 ones, and that's that." And, in some cases, yes they do , but (and it is a HUGE but)(no jokes please) a) by no means every track sounded better to me - I simply could not tell any significant difference on a lot of them - and b) where they did sound better, it wasn't enough to make me go "WOW!" I went "Oh yes, that's clearer." Perhaps, as you suggest, I was hoping to hear things I hadn't heard before (and I did - I heard some organ towards the end of Hello Goodbye - missed that off the list, I see), and I was disappointed because of that - maybe that's so. But I think I simply expected to hear an improvement in quality and, while I did, it wasn't a great improvement to me (and I emphasise "to me"). C'est la vie. Roll on the surround sound remixes - THEN you'll see me excited!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 17, 2009 15:46:04 GMT -5
I think had the CDs been remixed as well as remastered, this discussion probably wouldn't be necessary. I can understand your reluctance, vectis. But the differences are there. I'm not trying to take down your argument. I guess each person has to judge the significance of whether they're worth a go. I think the extras in the packaging sure help. And I hope they decide to release some or all of the mono CDs.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 17, 2009 15:46:38 GMT -5
And by the way, vectis, did you come by my house when I wasn't at home? Or were you talking about another Steve?
|
|
|
Post by Cosmos on Nov 17, 2009 16:37:19 GMT -5
The closest that I was able come, to replicating the experience that you are relating (i.e. two players in perfect sync) was two Sony CD "Jukeboxes" which can come relatively close in my music room, however I must start from the beginning each time through. I disagree with your analysis. True; some songs simply do not "pop" like I had hoped; however MOST DO in my opinion, and when they do it is "Oh My God...in heaven" in the confines of my music room. My ears are getting older too, but with my equipment these remasters sound absolutely brilliant and are only limited by the (1960) source material that they came from. I can do SO much more with my 5-band equalizer and the new CD's while just sitting there listening, than I ever could before... I only wish that you COULD hear what I hear, because it was nowhere near a disappointment vectisfabber. My condolences.
|
|
|
Post by jellyzero79 on Nov 18, 2009 1:31:16 GMT -5
I think you must have a shitty stereo system or your ears have rotted out.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 18, 2009 4:31:32 GMT -5
Probably the latter. Oh well, my misfortune. I would have loved to have had an epiphany! Oh, and much as I would have enjoyed swinging by and hijacking your music setup in your absence, Steve, this particular Steve is a 6 foot 5 policeman, the other half of the Elderly Brothers with whom I have regaled theatre audiences with badly performed Beatles songs in aid of the local Myasthenia Gravis association. (not remastered!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 18, 2009 11:26:30 GMT -5
I had been waiting for you to get over to your friend's house and report back. I totally respect your opinion. You didn't mention though whether you were drinking or not. ;D I find that great lager or ale(or wine if one must) enhances the experience.
My law partner picked up a glossy hi-fi magazine for me with the lads on the cover and the reviewer, some audio wonk, starts by saying he revisited thoroughly the entire 1987 catalog and it is not as bad as we all, including himself, had convinced ourselves that it was.
He did hear improvements overall in the 2009 stereo remasters but his verdict was that there were still not insignificant portions of the 2009 stereo remasters only equal to or even inferior to the 1987 versions.
This guy said what system he was listening to the music on but I'll have to be at home to report the magazine's name and what stereo equipment the reviewer was using but I bet it was good.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 18, 2009 17:56:04 GMT -5
Oh, and much as I would have enjoyed swinging by and hijacking your music setup in your absence, Steve, this particular Steve is a 6 foot 5 policeman, the other half of the Elderly Brothers with whom I have regaled theatre audiences with badly performed Beatles songs in aid of the local Myasthenia Gravis association. (not remastered! "Mister city policeman", eh? So which one are you in the video?
|
|
|
Post by gripweed on Nov 18, 2009 18:54:12 GMT -5
After a couple of months of listening, I think I prefer many of the mono albums on the home system and the stereo in my vehicle. The clarity on the mono CD's are like wowzers. goo goo ga joob.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 18, 2009 21:53:41 GMT -5
The clarity on the mono CD's are like wowzers. goo goo ga joob. ....not unlike Sayne's wife's picture in your avatar!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 19, 2009 4:46:14 GMT -5
So which one are you in the video? Me on the left, Steve singing.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 21, 2009 0:25:49 GMT -5
As I make my way through the mono and stereo remasters, I will make little comments a long the way. As I said on another thread, I am first listening to each stereo CD on the left speaker only, then the right only, then balanced. My first comment is that on Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, the clarity of the remasters is really evident in the right channel when hearing the bowed violas and cellos and basses. You can really hear the rubbing of the bow against the string. In fact, it's beyond hearing. You can feel the bow hairs stroke the strings. Incredible.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 21, 2009 12:37:07 GMT -5
As I make my way through the mono and stereo remasters, I will make little comments a long the way. As I said on another thread, I am first listening to each stereo CD on the left speaker only, then the right only, then balanced. My first comment is that on Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, the clarity of the remasters is really evident in the right channel when hearing the bowed violas and cellos and basses. You can really hear the rubbing of the bow against the string. In fact, it's beyond hearing. You can feel the bow hairs stroke the strings. Incredible. And I nominate sayne as most intense Beatles' fan in regard to the 2009 remasters. Do I hear a second...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2009 4:00:57 GMT -5
As I make my way through the mono and stereo remasters, I will make little comments a long the way. As I said on another thread, I am first listening to each stereo CD on the left speaker only, then the right only, then balanced. My first comment is that on Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, the clarity of the remasters is really evident in the right channel when hearing the bowed violas and cellos and basses. You can really hear the rubbing of the bow against the string. In fact, it's beyond hearing. You can feel the bow hairs stroke the strings. Incredible. And I nominate sayne as most intense Beatles' fan in regard to the 2009 remasters. Do I hear a second... I think i heard a pin drop.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Cosmos on Nov 22, 2009 8:29:49 GMT -5
Which song? What part? Damn, I can't believe that I've missed something THAT obvious in one of the re-masters!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 22, 2009 9:38:06 GMT -5
Listen to Dear Prudence on the stereo remaster. At about the 1:25 mark, background voices come in to sing a very long note (not Donna Summer long, but long nonetheless). I think it might be stronger on the left speaker. Anyway, who are the singers? The note is high, so I think there might be some women in there. Maybe enhanced by a keyboard. Don't know. Anyone have any specific info about who we're hearing?
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Nov 22, 2009 15:11:06 GMT -5
Sayne - it sounds like the same voicing at around 2:30 as well. But my guess it is just the other Beatles singing in harmony with perhaps a bit of studio trickery.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 22, 2009 22:37:07 GMT -5
Sayne - it sounds like the same voicing at around 2:30 as well. But my guess it is just the other Beatles singing in harmony with perhaps a bit of studio trickery. You could be right. I thought of that, too. Figured it might also be all Paul, plus effects, since he's the only one of the four who could go that high. With 60's "cutting and pasting" they do have it in another part of the song, as you noted. But, I do know the Beatlettes were around all the time, so that's why I figured they might be there, too.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 23, 2009 17:50:57 GMT -5
As I make my way through the mono and stereo remasters, I will make little comments a long the way. As I said on another thread, I am first listening to each stereo CD on the left speaker only, then the right only, then balanced. My first comment is that on Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, the clarity of the remasters is really evident in the right channel when hearing the bowed violas and cellos and basses. You can really hear the rubbing of the bow against the string. In fact, it's beyond hearing. You can feel the bow hairs stroke the strings. Incredible. And I nominate sayne as most intense Beatles' fan in regard to the 2009 remasters. Do I hear a second... I second that (e)motion! ;D All in favor....?
|
|
|
Post by gripweed on Nov 25, 2009 22:45:49 GMT -5
Listen to Dear Prudence on the stereo remaster. At about the 1:25 mark, background voices come in to sing a very long note (not Donna Summer long, but long nonetheless). I think it might be stronger on the left speaker. Anyway, who are the singers? The note is high, so I think there might be some women in there. Maybe enhanced by a keyboard. Don't know. Anyone have any specific info about who we're hearing? Yeah, I do. It's the babe in my avatar.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 26, 2009 11:27:40 GMT -5
Listen to Dear Prudence on the stereo remaster. At about the 1:25 mark, background voices come in to sing a very long note (not Donna Summer long, but long nonetheless). I think it might be stronger on the left speaker. Anyway, who are the singers? The note is high, so I think there might be some women in there. Maybe enhanced by a keyboard. Don't know. Anyone have any specific info about who we're hearing? Yeah, I do. It's the babe in my avatar. Wow! I didn't know sayne's wife was on a Beatle record! ;D
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 26, 2009 21:52:22 GMT -5
Listen to Dear Prudence on the stereo remaster. At about the 1:25 mark, background voices come in to sing a very long note (not Donna Summer long, but long nonetheless). I think it might be stronger on the left speaker. Anyway, who are the singers? The note is high, so I think there might be some women in there. Maybe enhanced by a keyboard. Don't know. Anyone have any specific info about who we're hearing? According to Lewisohn, only Paul & George (and possibly John)are doing background vocals on this song. No women. No other singers. The high vocals at 1:25 sound to me like the guys doing falsetto vocalizing, similar to what they did for the brief phrase 'If there's anything I can do' in the song "Tell Me Why" back in 1964.
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Dec 29, 2009 7:58:15 GMT -5
Having not heard any of the remastered stuff beforehand I really wanted it to zing out of the speakers at me. I'm mean, REALLY. It didn't. There were some tracks where I could hear a significant improvement in quality, particularly with the bass end beefed up and a fuller, rounder sound overall with some tinniness stripped away from the treble end, particularly on the older tracks. Conversely, there were other tracks where we couldn't tell any difference - we thought we could hear a difference, but it was actually simply a matter of volume: when we compensated for the different volume level on the remaster there was virtually no difference in quality at all. I confess to being disappointed. I was trying very hard not to let what I was hearing get coloured by what I feared were preconceptions, and I hope I was able to be sufficiently fair minded for that not to happen. And I really wanted there to be a big difference - I wanted to be wrong! But if a Beatles track came up on the car radio while I was driving, there is absolutely no way I would be able to tell if it was a remaster or not and, even in those cases where the difference was most notable, it wasn't of sufficient magnitude to justify me shelling out to buy these albums for a fourth time. I now have the re-mastered Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White Album and Abbey Road in my possession... ...I've not spent an overly-long amount of time comparing and contrasting the old CDs with the re-masters - and I've certainly not done it as scientifically and forensically as Vectis and his mate Steve (and probably not on anything like as good equipment) however, I would pretty much echo every sentence, every word, every syllable of Vectis' assessment. Yes, the re-masters are a very slightly better, crisper, more definition - but we are talking very small fractions -- and I agree, if you make subtle adjustments to volume and tone the difference is pretty negligible. I won't bang on about it any further, because some people have really enjoyed the whole re-master experience and I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but to me the whole re-masters thing has been a disappointment. The packaging is great, and I'm glad that Beatles records are available in the best possible sound quality for posterity and the enjoyment of future generations, but that's about as far as it goes for me, I'm afraid. I note what JoeK said immediately after Vectis' first posting on this thread and agree that it would be silly to expect too much from a re-master. However, I think I was hoping for a shade more - a real discernable difference. It didn't happen. Pity.
|
|
|
Post by cublowell on Dec 30, 2009 21:36:38 GMT -5
I bought the mono box back in September, and I'm very impressed with the remastering. Each voice and instrument now has a clearly defined place in the mix, even in a mono mix, which towards the end of the Beatles catalog can sound sort of cluttered. For example, in the remasters the low frequencies, such as the kick drum, Paul's bass, the bass end of the guitars & pianos & voices, all sound clear and separated, instead of one big mush of bass. That's the main difference to my ears, and one that's definitely worth the money spent.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 30, 2009 23:08:06 GMT -5
I was surprised by how good the remasters were. I had low expectations but the sound quality is vastly improved.
|
|