Beatles forums > Remasters
The remasters are horrible
Bobber:
Good points there peter
Almighty Doer of Stuff:
I don't want remixes. I like the broad panning. If I'm going to listen to something in stereo, I want it to be in STEREO. I don't want it all mixed closer to center just because that's the current trend. It's a stupid trend, in my opinion.
filmsyncs:
--- Quote from: peterbell1 on February 09, 2010, 12:55:56 PM ---I certainly do agree that the RMs sound better than the old 1980s CD releases (they couldn't be any worse!), but wouldn't you have preferred a remixed catalogue for your £150/$200 rather than simply a remastered one? I definitely would!
Why did they wait 20 years since the original CDs came out to do a simple remaster job? Those old CDs sounded so bad that a remastering should have been done long ago.
Give them a few years and Apple will come out with the remixed albums - and they'll expect everyone to shell out for the same material .... again.
It's all about money with the Beatles catalogue rather than giving fans some sort of value. Yes, EMI are a business and they want to make money, but there's nothing stopping them giving the fans more value for that money .
Many other bands bend over backwards to get good product out to their fans. The Who, for example, have done some great "deluxe" re-releases of their albums, with lots of unreleased studio and live material put out on double-CD packages. This is after the whole catalogue was remastered some years ago (again with extra tracks) to replace the original series of CD albums. The deluxe CDs are released at not much more than the price of a normal non-chart CD. Plus, the old Who CDs are still available, but at a reduced price, giving the CD buyer a choice.
Imagine if the Beatles had done the same - replaced the original albums after ten years on the shelves with remastered versions with a few extras thrown in.
Then, ten years later, finally remixed every album and released it as a "deluxe" 2-CD package.
I would have happily shelled out for all of those releases.
There are some of the Who CDs that I have in three different versions (original, remaster and Deluxe) but I never minded handing over the cash for them because I have always felt like I was getting value for money.
As it is, as a Beatles fan I am meant to be content with overpriced and underwhelming rehashed product.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. And that's why I only purchased the mono box set. Although imperfect from an audio standpoint, anyone that has listened to the Rock Band stuff posted on the Internet can see what could have been done with the source material. Yes, some of the albums are worse than others but anyone that doesn't think that Apple isn't planning to cash in yet again with remixed stereo is kidding themselves. Of course they will. And when they do, they can always (correctly) say that they gave the fans remastered albums that maintain the albums as originally produced. If they don't want remastered stereo, nobody is forcing anyone to buy them.
--- Quote from: Almighty Doer of Stuff --- I don't want remixes. I like the broad panning. If I'm going to listen to something in stereo, I want it to be in STEREO. I don't want it all mixed closer to center just because that's the current trend. It's a stupid trend, in my opinion.
--- End quote ---
Panning involves movement. The main problem is music as far left and right as possible as if coming from the fire exits in a concert hall. Having music more centered ... if that's a current trend, that trend as been around since a term called center stage. Don't get me wrong, having some sounds coming from the far walls may be fine, but that's not how we should hear vocals.
mondo obscura:
I totally disagree with the original quoted articel;. The remasters had more done to them than just volume. And for a tech geek the guy is blowing smoke.
The stereos were boosted (compressed) by about 4db, bringing the quieter passages louder up to 4db. So yes, you ARE hearing things you never heard before, it's not just louder, its that the dynamics are less far apart than before (by 4db). This is not simply turning up the volume.
Secondly they EQ'ed and remastered differently, which makes a huge difference in the sound. Paul's bass is far more apparent, the drums pack a beter punch, etc. They were mastered FOR CD's, not just transferred flat from vinyl masterings.
These are the stereos we are talking about. The monos were pretty much straight transfers, from the actual master tapes, with little to no processing otherwise. But being from the original master tape makes it a few generations cleaner than anything released prior to this (I am not sure the 87 discs were from master copies or not).
So in other words...yes, the stereo remasters DO sound better, in some cases incredibly so. The paning may sound severe but it is exactly what was on the master tapes, and the remastering quality may make it a bit more noticeable on some cuts (note the original article doesn't mention anything specific except Come Together). This is all just misinformed generalization, ego and someone's misplaced idea that he understands audio.
I own both mono and stereo box sets, and am very happy to have the closest thing to what the Beatles heard in the studio than ever available before.
Your mileage may vary, and that's fine. But facts is facts and this guy was just spouting opinion.
Hey, this is my first post here! Don't mean to step on any toes, I just know about the remasters more than the casual fan and it irks me to see myths promulgated by people who have no clue (again, the Amazon review, not anyone here).
So since the remsters are now the official catalog, buy one and see for yourself. Don't take someone else's word for it, your ears are the final judge.
nimrod:
and Dr Ebbetts certainly rates them highly;
http://www.beatleswiki.com/wiki/index.php/Dr._Ebbetts_Retires_from_the_Beatles_Remastering_Business
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version