Beatles Red & Blue Albums Remastered Oct. 19 (Part Two)

Except, over and over you keep giving reasons *why* they sound different.

 

They have said that most of the difference in sound of the 2009 remasters vis a vis the 1987 CD's is due to the better transfer (i.e., using a better tape deck and taking the time to align the tapes correctly) than to EQ adjustments. See here:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct09/articles/beatlesremasters.htm

As far as the use of NR,

 

Of course, we don't know what "tiny amounts" and "very subtle" exactly means in terms of EQ.

Whatever the case, it seems disingenuous to suggest the bass was "slashed" on earlier CDs, either intentionally or through a mistake of some sort.

 

I said that too, but Luke disagrees with me. So, either they didn't slash bass, or they boosted it. they didn't boost it on the remasters, so it has to be the gear. I have said that all year long, but Luke, and others disagreed with it. So, what else could there be to get them to concede that the bass wasn't boosted, or at least not to the levels some people keep making it out to be.

 

No. The booklet is referring to "Please Please Me" being #1 in the UK.

 

The song "Please Please Me" was number 1 for 2 weeks in Feb 1963 on the NME top 30 charts.

JF

 

As a generalization, I get the impression that some of the so-called "boosted" bass over the stereo remaster series was due to the limiting applied. They did this on one channel (instead of two), and IIRC usually applied on the channel where the rhythm was mixed to.

 

They didn't say they didn't boost it on the remasters. They said a lot of tracks were flat transfers, but that perhaps 100 did have EQ. Exactly what and how much that EQ was is unknown. "A lot of it was very subtle" seems to offer more than a little wiggle room that there was at least some less than subtle tweaking in places.

We already know the '09 remasters were produced very "hands on" in many respects. The noise reduction, however subtle, the click/pop reduction, the narrowing, the limiting...it isn't in any way out of the realm of possibility that at least some things were EQ'd more than subtly. Equipment differences can certainly cause subtle differences in frequency response, but anything more than subtle almost certainly points to differences in mastering *technique*, namely EQ. And it's almost certain that more EQ was applied to the '93 and '09 CDs than the '87/'88 CDs.

 

I think that's only because the channel with the bass had more dynamics that could be limited. And, BTW, i highly doubt that an average of, say, 2db would affect the bass. If anything, applying limiting to bass makes it weaker, not stronger.

 

Bottom line: are you happy with these remasters? I am.

Question, though, can I fix the phase on "Revolver"? I have not played around with it to see.

 

Good. That wasn't what we were talking about, however.

Polarity. And yes, you can reverse it, but it isn't clear which polarity is actually correct. Whatever the case, most people can't tell the difference anyway.

 

An the Beatles EP No1 shows a third variation:

 

....starring the eyebrow quartet...

 

I believe you mean octet.

 

Excuse my ignorance, but are the tracks from say "Rubber Soul" in stereo?

 

I'll go one better than that: are the Help! and RS tracks the remixes or the ORIGINAL stereo mixes?

 

Beatles??
More like caterpillars....

 

And I'm saying that it was done quite frequently. The last time I was at Futuredisc, just before it closed, we played the first CD I ever had done there, marveling (and not in a good way) at the EQ which "slashed" the bass and favored the highs.

This was a major mastering studio. One engineer in particular, who shall remain nameless, was known for favoring that sound. We as clients didn't know better at the time, we just said "make it sound good". And it DID sound good, in an 80s kind of way.

But it's not what I would choose now, because of current audiophile trends and, of course, because of what I have learned here.

 

Did someone not point out in the Revolver thread that although the polarity is different to the 87 CD it was the same as the original vinyl? I will try and find it.

 

Someone did........

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=5515244&postcount=330

 

The Abbey Road team indicated the '87/'88 CDs were flat transfers, for better or worse.

There you go.

 

"Indifferently mastered," as Steve has said.

 

Flat transfer doesn't necessarily mean nothing is touched. It can also mean (and usually does mean) that a general eq is set up, based on the overall sound, and then the things are pretty much left alone, track to track.

This would be the "indifferent mastering" Steve referred to when discussing the '80s Beatle masters (note his complaints about the screeching highs of "With A Little Help From My Friends" or the dullness of "Kite" that weren't adjusted.)

Literal flat transfers happen approximately never. Which is why Steve has made such an issue about it with Pet Sounds - it's rare enough to be a talking point. But the Abbey Road team could do very little - and still start out with parameters, like "lets roll off this thudding bass just a bit...".

I'm just saying it happens, I heard it with my own eyes. I'll be quiet now.

 

I'll be getting these. Target has a great price.

 

I went to Border's and my local store never had them on sale for $13.99. A local indie music does, though.

Evan