Beatles Remasters On Vinyl: Please Post News Here (Part Two)

The biggest complaint I've heard about the 1 compilation has always been heavyhanded noise reduction. The background noise of vinyl can tend to compensate for that silent vacuum left by NR.

 

I understand Paul. And This is exactly my point! I've frequently wondered why Beatles songs sounded for lack of a better term, 'fuller'-to me-on the radio, or better yet, why, back in the day for me, I Always turned up the Bass and Treble on most Rock records. I am fully aware that the 'Masters' are as they are. And that's where the limitations have been all this time! How many people have tried tweaking the Beatles catalog to try and make it sound better? From Dr. Ebberts (hope I'm spelling that right, if not ......sorry) to probably hundreds of fans over the decades....well, there's a reason for that no?? All these years of collecting I've fooled myself thinking that the Masters must just sound absolutely awesome and that it's the vinyl/cd pressings that have been the compromise? It's just NOW that I'm thinking more realistically and that maybe the Master Tapes aren't as fantastic as I thought they might be. Proof is in the pudding-in my living room, over my speakers, I put on 'Come Together' from the BC-13 Pressing, No eq-everything flat, as is how I listen to things now, and then I put on the newer version from the "1" double Lp, and it just wipes the floor with the sheer Fidelity exuding from the speakers. So there IS something real and special going on......I hope that it's what I'm hoping for. But what I know right now is I've got two Beatles albums (Yellow Submarine Yellow Wax and #1) that Blow all the other cd's and album versions I have of the Beatles catalog away. I'm liking the trend......
Very fun interacting with you! Thanks for your opinion Paul, you are valued much on this forum!
The Beave

 

You are welcome...
Perhaps you have come to the statement yourself...that the tapes aren't audiophile to begin with...but how much tampering do you want to do? If you put too much emphasis on one frequency then you might be mucking with another level...and thereby ruining coherency...

 

Yep...kinda like to see hi-rez mono and stereo, too!

 

Those that bought the double lp version weren't too impressed with how it sounded. You could say it was too messed up even for a vinyl mastering to fix.
In general I would regard the analog UK issues as the nearest thing on vinyl to a reference however they may well be more on those tapes than they were able to cut satisfactory back then.

 

Very true Paul. I don't want any tampering that 'takes away' from the 'juice' of the music. But when I first heard the tracks from the old cd 'Ultra Rare Trax' I was very much taken aback by the fullness of their sound compared to the official releases. And I am well aware that a lot of music collectors shun away from what they perceive as 'excessive' bass. I don't. I love a full sound when it's reproduced correctly. But don't take that to mean that I like exaggerated bass, I don't. I also like things clean, and an abnormal amount of excessive bass ruins everything, (ie: 'putting too much emphasis on one frequency). But again, it seems that this mystique of LP making causes a lot of confusion. And also has made it fun in the past looking for those 'holy grail' pressings. But perhaps, the original masters were eq'd for lp production as they were being made, and unless you 'reversed' whatever those eq values were, you would Never get a 'flat' tape as they exist on the multitracks. And that would also answer why those Ultra Rare Track sounded so much better to a lot of people, their from the pre-mastertape tapes. (Ie: no tampering done to them yet). But in any case, this does seem to be in one way, a historical release as far as Vinyl goes. Other than remixing, which I can take it or leave it, it depends on if the remix does the original justice, and them some, these newly made LP Master tapes have been through the sonic microscope-song by song. Something that happens all too rarely when it comes to re-issues. So I'm very much pleased to still be alive and experience it. Once more though, to each his/her own. I do not look down on anyone who differs with my sonic tastes. Heck, I wish I had the ears that said 'Man this BC-13 Is IT!!!) Then I wouldn't have to spend all this bloody cash that's a coming my way!
Funny though, before I saw the pre-order on Amazon.de you would have laughed at my 'watch' list of Beatles Vinyl on eBay!!!

The Beave

 

Don't know, but the Mirage speakers are pretty unforgiving sonically. If there was Any noise reduction muffling at all, I would hear it, especially on fade outs. And I can't detect any. On cd, though, yeah, it sounds pretty 'airbrushed' sonically. Don't care for that one at all. But I haven't listened to that thing since I bought it, pretty obvious why.

The Beave

 

Not buying this argument. I can hear the difference. Again, Hi-Res sourced vinyl can sound great, just not as good as all analog.

 

Yes, but how do you know for sure? Have you heard a record cut from both sources but with all other possible factors EXACTLY the same? Same mastering, same equipment, same cutting settings, etc., etc. That's the only way to know for sure.

 

Yes I have.

 

Cool. What was it?

 

Really? I have "1" on vinyl as well, but I always thought that was cut from the 44.1/16 CD master.

 

One of my own recordings, that was all analog and later digital.

 

I don't know how adding an extra step to the process can be better.

 

We're not talking about adding steps. We're talking about whether an LP sourced from digital can sound as good as the same one from analog. We're also not talking about a home recording you may have made comparing an analog source to the digital recording. You may well have heard a difference, but unless you put both through the process of mastering and LP cutting, you have no way of knowing if you'd still hear the difference on the resulting LPs.

 

I would disagree in any statement saying you could not hear the difference between an all analog mastered LP compared to LP mastering from a digital source (no matter how high the sampling etc)

Unfortunately with the Beatles mono, we will never have that opportunity. The only way is to compare a original UK first mono pressing with the new digital mono LP. Even then it is not directly from the master, so maybe a mute point.

 

But unless you actually were able to directly compare two pressings where nothing else could affect the result, how would you know for sure? As GeorgeZ and delmonaco both pointed out, any difference between an analog master and a hires copy would be masked by the limitations of vinyl (and believe me, I'm no vinyl hater and I've got the receipts from the local record stores and eBay to prove it!). Given the stunning sound on the Stones Abkco box, I'd say GeorgeZ (Jiri) knows what he's talking about.

Even if it were directly from the master, it might not sound the same due to any number of factors.

On the other hand, we have forum member LeeS, someone who's proven through his comments to have a pretty good ear, who started a thread awhile back talking about how very close he found the 2009 Sgt. Pepper remaster to a tube-cut original pressing.

 

This isn't a home recording. It was recorded at the Power Station in NYC. Pressed to vinyl.

Yes, there is a step being added. When analog is converted to digital for mastering and then is converted back to analog on the lp that is one step more than all analog.

You obviously prefer digital vinyl mastering which can be great. I prefer hi-res sourced vinyl over any cd, that's for sure. I know you are making the argument that hi-res source Beatle vinyl can sound great. I don't disagree. My only problem is that the Beatles in their purist form is all analog. We are talking about one of the greatest and most important rock bands of all time. Why cut any corners. The Hendrix all analog titles are fantastic. The Hendrix digital masters on recent vinyl sound good too. They are just lacking that last bit of that organic sound that I have come to expect from great vinyl.

 

Were both an analog and digital version pressed, and using exactly the same settings?

I didn't say I prefer anything. I don't see this as an either-or situation. I just said I honestly don't believe that using a hires recording of an analog master as a source for an LP cutting will necessarily offer an audible degradation over using the tape itself, all other things being equal. It really is more about mastering than anything else. Heck, I do needledrops every day at 24/96, convert them to 16/48 then to 256k MP3s for listening on my portable player and car and I can still hear their improvement over CD versions of the same titles, so obviously digital formats in themselves do not mangle the magic of a good recording. Inexperienced or revisionist mastering engineers who insist on tweaking with the latest digital toys just because they can are more often the culprit. All of the remasters I've heard coming out of Apple in the past few years are quite nice sounding so I look forward to hearing how they handle the vinyl versions.

 

LOL!! Not being Militant here, really, but I have to agree 100% with you Stereoguy. I asked the same question myself when I delved into the BC-13 box last week....'Where IS the bass??" Listen, I put on a recent cd like JohnnyA's 'Get Inside' at Flat-no treble no bass either way....and it sounds Good....put on an album from BC-13 and it's like landing on Mars. Clean sounding Yes, very much so, but a 0 for aural musical involvement. Again, that's the point here isn't it? This band, which is SO historical in modern cultural history, has been so poorly represented on the popular mediums of the day, that I think this upcoming vinyl re-issues could do a lot to rectify that situation. I hope I'm right. You all have to ask yourselves a very honest question in this discussion.... "why DID the Capitol engineers put all that reverb and echo on the early releases? Could it be that they also found the sound of the british 'masters' lacking????
The Beave

 

Then dphilippov, get your *** over here to the USA! We'd LOVE to have a fellow Russian Rock N Roller on our soil!!!!
The Arms are open!!
The Beave

 

Yes Really!! LOL! Who cares what it was 'cut' from..... does it SOUND Good?? The '1' vinyl sounds audiophile-in my living room-to me. I wouldn't lie to you- honestly!! If there was any fakery or-and I mean this literally-overindulgence in the noise reduction department that: 'takes away from the 'juice' of the music.....' and that's a VERY important statement to me, read it again, 'if it takes AWAY anything from the juice of the music, then I'd be honest and tell you about it. But I am not afraid of technology as long as it's conducive with transferring the soul of what it's addressing. In this case were talkin bout Beatles. So, again, one mans garbage is another mans meat. Hey, if your in the Seattle area anytime, pop me a pm and we'll have to get together for some real time sonic fun. It rains a lot here but that makes the static go down when I clean the records for playing!!
Happy Saturday everyone!
The Beave

 

This is it in a nutshell for me. The latest Hendrix vinyl is really done right and priced right. Most of it is all analog, the way I grew up listening to it.

I don't want hi-res vinyl which for some is good enough.
I want this latest Beatle vinyl to be the best ever. That would mean all analog. It should be considering that this probably is the last go around for Beatles vinyl. Mastering studios have a way of using a computer to monitor the mastering and bypassing the digital realm for the actual cutting. I understand this would be more money and work for those involved, but this run of vinyl is going to last a long time and make plenty of money.