|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:51 pm 
boone wrote: I think you're talking about in the way, way early days of CDs. Maybe the early 80s, back when CD players were $500 luxury items. Most of the CDs you'd be able to find at a second hand store would be from at least the early 90s, when digital mastering pretty much hit its stride.
So I see no reason to spend so much money for blatant double dipping, especially when it just might sound like crap. If we can agree on that, the rest of this is just splitting hairs.  Yeah, I'm talking about those really old cds... and we're splitting hairs. The thing about the masters not being available, that's actually more common that you might think. Oh, and it just struck me that at this stage a lot of their original fans might be suffering some hearing loss, so that might be another reason to pod everything up, those old ears aren't what they used to be  ( I'd laugh, but that could be me in 30 years talking about old Eisley cds needing to be remastered to whatever direct to brain format they're using, I-ebellum or whatever it'll be called)
and I totally agree on the double dipping, they have been doing that with Greatests Hits/ Best Of/ 20th Century Masters/ Legacy Editions/ Platinum Series/ #1's compilations for the same artists from the same pool of 19 or so songs, for the last 30 years. One for each crop of college freshmen I guess? As far as these disks, the Remastering comes down to how much you trust Paul not to be a money grubbing miser. The story I heard was that he sat in on all the sessions with George Martin and spearheaded the work to bring these releases up to standard. Rollingstone has written about the whole affair periodically starting back when there were rumors of the catalog hitting Itunes when the lawsuit between Apple Computers and Apple Record Company was settled. Demand for Beatles remasters has steadily increased since 1987, when Capitol/EMI first released the Beatles’ discography on CD with what many audiophile fans deemed substandard sound quality compared to the original vinyl. While it seems like other artists remaster their entire catalog every several years, Capitol/EMI have barely touched the Beatles’ discography since 1987, with the exception of 2004’s The Capitol Albums, Vol. 1 box set, which compiled and remastered the band’s first four American releases in stereo and mono formats. The soundtrack for the Beatles’ Love show also gave listeners a brief tease of how fantastic the band’s songs would sound if properly remastered. Me, I only ever heard those old cds, and Abbey Road on cassette, so I wouldn't know, since I've never heard the vinyl... So if money was no object, for me that Might be a selling point. We'll see if I cave... _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB          
 = personal fave  = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:30 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
   |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:00 pm
boone wrote: uncreative wrote: boone wrote: Beings that "remastered" these days usually means "compressed to the point of ear fatigue," I'm a little wary of something like this. Especially when you're talking prices like that.
It'd be a lot cheaper -- and probably sound a heck of a lot better -- to just find the original CD releases at second hand stores and pawn shops. Even the "old master" CDs are overpriced, if you ask me. The White Album is, like, 30 bucks new. I'm certainly not an expert on audio terms, but I assume compressed means a lower bit rate? If so, these remasters actually have a higher bit rate than the 1987 releases. All I can go by is what I've read, and that is that "the sonic improvements in the stereo releases" are "discernible on even mediocre playback devices." (Quotes taken from this review). I don't think I would blindly spend $250, but I definitely want to hear these and if they are as good as I'm reading that they are, I will probably buy them eventually. I own almost all their albums on vinyl, I'd love to compare the remasters to the vinyl. No, I'm talking about dynamic range compression, in that you compress the quiet and the loud spectra of the music to make the volume more even. The Beatles did a lot of experiments with light-to-medium compression on drums and piano, and a lot of those techniques are still used in recordings today, but almost all modern recordings go through major DRC in the mastering phase (though, apparently, now it's moving to the mixing phase as well.) This is supposed to make the songs sound "louder," but in the process it makes everything sound loud, which can hurt your ears, and brings most of the song dangerously close -- or even drastically over -- to clipping, which can damage your speakers (and sound terrible.) Remastering an album doesn't really do much anyway. Mastering is supposed to be a subtle art, and has more to with making sure all the songs work together as a whole than doing any major sound design. Remastered CDs are basically just a way for record companies to double dip, since the CD just won't be replaced as easily as any other format. Don't buy the hype; most people will say a remastered CD sounds better simply because they know it's remastered, and it's "supposed" to sound better. Oh, and it doesn't matter what bitrate it's mastered at. It will be downsampled to 44.1khz just like every other CD, and really human ears can't detect any difference beyond 40khz anyway. If I were you, I would just stick with your records. They were mastered beautifully, and nobody is really going to be able to top them. Take your $300 and buy a good record player with a USB output so you can put them on your MP3 player.[/i] Ha, I knew I was wrong and that you'd correct me. Thanks, great insight. I'm definitely no expert at sound and everything related. I enjoyed reading what you guys had to say about this subject. And with that I'm going to put Revolver on the turntable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 | Posts: 2890 | Location: Oregon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:08 pm
By the way, looks like The Beatles will hit iTunes soon, according to Yoko anyway. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/08/did-yoko-ono-and-sky-news-just-ru in-apples-beatles-surprise/ |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 | Posts: 2890 | Location: Oregon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:11 am
wilsmith wrote: Me, I only ever heard those old cds, and Abbey Road on cassette, so I wouldn't know, since I've never heard the vinyl... So if money was no object, for me that Might be a selling point. We'll see if I cave... As of right now, the only Beatles record I have is The White Album. It blows my Beatles CDs away, but not in terms of definition. It sounds "sweeter," not "sharper." My Rubber Soul, Sgt. Peppers, etc. CDs sound great, but they're not as "loud" as my #1 CD. That's really the only difference that I can tell. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:50 am
The two prime examples of the power of a remaster that I have experienced are those Funkadelic records I mentioned (and I payed full price for those cds, what a rip-off) and more recently, the rerelease of Ten by Pearl Jam. At least PJ was honest in that they made it a two disc with one a remaster, the other a remaster and remix. But seriously, the improvement over the original cd is pretty astounding with this one, on the remaster alone, as far as musical definition, you can really hear parts of songs that were obscured and muddied on the original. Don't believe me, they have it where you can hear tracks on that link. But PJ are pretty honest guys, so they actually put a legit effort in it. In the case of those early Grunge records, the original stuff was purposefully deglossed, so that makes me a little more eager to hear Bleach, Diary, & LP2 which all got the same treatment. In the case of the latter 2 I'm a big fan of Brad Wood's production, and he's only gotten better over time, so if they let him have another crack at those records that would be really interesting to hear. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:13 am; edited 1 time in total |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:24 am
A Portland radio station (KINK 101.9 if anyone in the area wants to listen) is playing the entire remastered Beatles catalog from A to Z (just stared R, on Rain right now). I see what you mean about them being "louder." They do indeed sound amazing, even through the radio, but even at a low volume, my ears kind of hurt. But again, they sound pretty freaking awesome. My friend tried to find a box set in stores today but everywhere he went was out. Has anyone played Beatles Rock Band yet? EDIT: Ha, they're playing Revolution 9 now. Sounds so much better remastered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 | Posts: 2890 | Location: Oregon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:15 pm
The Ears Have It! _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:53 pm
I won't be getting it because I've spent the past couple years sampling and choosing my favorite needle drops. I did take a listen, however, to both the stereo and mono remasters this weekend and I'm really impressed with them. I agree with the compression argument, but the improvement over the EMI CDs of the late 80s is pretty incredible. _________________ 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2006 | Posts: 1419 | Location: Maine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:46 am
I got the stereo box set off Amazon for $180. The sound quality is noticeably improved. Boone, the volume is increased, but there's no clipping. It was done very well. That said, Please Please Me through Beatles For Sale don't sound nearly as good as their mono counterparts, because the first four albums were not originally recorded with a stereo version. Therefore, you end up with stuff like all the vocal layers in the right speaker, and all the rhythm in the left. The rest sounds amazing, though. _________________ EvilSpace |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:33 am
uncreative wrote: EDIT: Ha, they're playing Revolution 9 now. Sounds so much better remastered.How will I play it backwards though? Oh wait, the remasters were released on 9/9/09? Number 9, number 9, number 9... All is good, I guess.
I guess I have to ask should I take Paul's point of view or John's point of view from Getting Better -- "It's Getting Better all the time..." or "It can't get no worse..." in regards to to the remasters??? Ah, if I had $200 I would go find out. Being as I am pretty poor lately, I'll leave that to others to decide. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7525 | Location: Wisconsin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:01 pm
My brothers and I are hoping to team up to buy this as a Christmas gift for our mother. I can't say I'd complain about having access to all the music, either. _________________ My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25184 | Location: East Texas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:42 pm
JBaker wrote: I got the stereo box set off Amazon for $180.
The sound quality is noticeably improved. Boone, the volume is increased, but there's no clipping. It was done very well. That said, Please Please Me through Beatles For Sale don't sound nearly as good as their mono counterparts, because the first four albums were not originally recorded with a stereo version. Therefore, you end up with stuff like all the vocal layers in the right speaker, and all the rhythm in the left. The rest sounds amazing, though. That's good. It'd be cool if somebody imported some of the songs into Audacity and screen capped it, so everybody could get a look at the dynamic range. That would probably alleviate some fears (or cause them...) The box set is pretty cool looking, I must admit. I love how the CD cases are little reproductions of the vinyl sleeves. But I think I'm going to stick to picking up the records used. At least I know it'll be the same packaging, just bigger. The Beatles early stuff was recorded on two track tape, with music on one track and vocals on the other. That explains the "split track" style stereo mix. I don't really see the point in a cheaper, stereo version. Sticking it to the audiophiles again, I see. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:00 pm
This thread has been very enlightening! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:29 am
Boone, Pitchfork did it. Tomorrow Never Knows (1987): 
Tomorrow Never Knows (2009): 
I Want You (1987) 
I Want You (2009) 
So like I said, the volume is increased, but the dynamics are fully intact. It looks like they got it about just as loud as possible without clipping. _________________ EvilSpace |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:57 am
That's pretty impressive, actually, that looks like it'll sound pretty good, as long as they didn't denoise it too much and kill the tone. I'm actually surprised at how weak those snare hits have always been. I wish The Beatles wouldn't have compressed the drums so much. That's a technique I kind of wish would go away. Thanks for that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> Music -> Who's buying the remastered Beatles albums?
Page 2 of 7 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
