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

A few choice quotes:

http://www.examiner.com/beatles-in-...gives-a-preview-of-the-beatles-remastered-cds

http://www.audioprointernational.com/features/146/Remastering-The-Beatles

Now, I'll be the first to admit that a lot of quotes seem either contradictory or vague, but like I said earlier, it's impossible to argue the new remasters ('09) were not done significantly more "hands on" than the '87 CDs. And while better/newer equipment arguably could have yielded some improvements in the initial transfers, if there's a significant difference, it is almost certainly due to something that was done for the '09 discs.

All of that said, to be clear, the '93 Red and Blue CDs *did* have additional EQ and noise reduction.

 

I believe that was exactly what Steve was referring to. He said Pepper "needed some mastering" and referred, if memory serves, to both those tracks.

 

You have to think that the essays - like the whole Anthology thru remasters projects - needed to be OK'd by all four parties or no-go. Can you imagine trying to get all 4 of these entities to agree on an essay? It's gonna wind up bland as can be..

 

Quick threadcrap. I live in a beach town in LA. One of my favorite bar/ restaurants is a Cajun place on our main drag. One night in the 90s I drove by and saw musicians bringing equipment into the restaurant. I thought it was unusual, bands never performed there.

Two days later our local paper carried an interview with George Martin. He was discussing a new singer he'd discovered and was producing (impressive at this late date!). He'd brought her to an out-of-the way place to test her songs in front of an unsuspecting audience. It was my Cajun place.

The interview carried a picture of Sir George, hands in pockets, spending a weeknight out on the sidewalk of the street, right up from my house! Dang, where was I??

 

That two tracks on Pepper "needed some mastering" does not equate to "when the CD was mastered, EQ was used, but it was the same for every track". If anything, Steve has said or implied that if tracks vary greatly in sound from one to the next, chances are things were just left as-is in mastering. He's referenced the White Album in that regard numerous times.

And, while it shouldn't need repeating, I'll do so anyway: I don't at all think a flat transfer (little to no EQ) is necessarily better, nor am I stating the '87 CDs are necessarily better because they have little or no EQ. I'm merely debating the notion that major differences between the '87/'88 and '09 CDs are due to changes made in '87/'88.

 

This is not correct. The stereo songs are the original mixes, not remixes, except for the Rubber Soul and Help tracks, which utilize the 1987 remixes.

Like I said before, much misinformation in this thread.

 

That's not what I was referring to. Someone referenced SH as saying the 80s Beatles CD's had indifferent mastering. I concurred by quoting, as an example, another Steve quote, that Pepper "needed some mastering".

I linked it to our discussion about "flat mastering" to make a larger point (since 80s Pepper CD wasn't touched much, track by track*), but I wasn't saying that was Steve's point - he was just talking about a couple things that bugged him.

* but that's still not to say that there was no adjustment, upfront.

 

I give up!

 

I have to add: this whole discussion revolves around whether or not the bass was excessively boosted for the new remasters. My vote is no. The earlier CDs were bass-shy, whether by tweaking (which as I've stated I can believe) or simply by the lesser caliber of the 80s transfers.

That's my vote. Take it Dee Dee.

 

Neither of those seems all that likely.

 

heh!

 

What is your proof?

 

I give up!

 

I think it's all of the above!

 

Anyone else notice that the only photo not included from the 1993 booklets is the following?

 

Had my first look at the slipcase red and blue...and on the back it has:
"stereo ecept *mono"

I'm in New Zealand, so maybe it's only the Australian produced versions that have this blunder - can anyone confirm?

 

I've bought my copy here in Germany and on the slipcase there's exactly the same "missing x"...

 

I'm seriously considering picking up a few cheap scratched up copies of the old sets and storing the new discs in the jewel cases. I really don't like the double digipacks. I may do that for the White album and Past Masters as well.

 

You get the nice blue or red fatbox too with the old ones, so that'll look nice with the new discs in them. I don't have these new versions, but like the look of my blue red fatboxes. Could do with a new blue one though as it's a bit faded.

 

I have 'em now and I love 'em. I've always loved the red and blue sets; I think 1967-70 is a perfect album.

Man, though, I hate the cheap-*** digipaks Capitol has put these CDs into. What a step down from the red and blue clamshell boxes of the previous editions. How do you get the CDs out without running the risk of tearing the covers? It's tough.

 

Plus these retain fingerprints like crazy. The Lennon remasters pacakaging, especially sucks.

Eban

 

After years of believing the Red and Blue sets were unnecessary, in the sense I have all the tracks anyway on albums etc, I succumbed to temptation (they are a bargain price at many outlets in the UK). And, you know, the Blue album is an excellent compilation...I've been playing it non-stop in the car. The Red is not quite as good. Most of the original albums are criminally under-represented, PPM and Revolver (if you don't count single hits featured) aren't in evidence at all. I know there was a desire to keep the historical track listings. But, really, even in 1973 the Red album on vinyl could have accommodated 6 to 8 more tracks spread across the four sides without any discernable diminution in sound quality.

 

There are less songs on the red collection, combined with substantially shorter songs too. I never saw the logic in it.

 

At the time, the early 1970s, when these were compiled, it may have been thought the later Beatles period was so much better than the early stuff.

For those looking for the "old" Red and Blue Cds, cheap, for the fatboy cases, I bet a lot of people will be unloading the '93 versions on Ebay and Amazon.con.

Evan

 

Not always. I bought the blue set new around '94, and it came with standard black trays. That still pisses me off. I need to get a blue case.