2012 Beatles vinyl reissues. WTF?

[doorknocker]

I find it interesting and revealing that even after 30 posts and a sense of brooding hostility (not helped by the thread title of course ) nobody actually talked about how these albums sound?!

I would think that an actual personal listening process should be the basis of one's opinion and not the technical process of the remasters.

Do I miss something here?

[zsaezsaespeck]

I can see why one wouldn't want to risk those tapes... No matter how much we wish they would.

Has anyone heard these yet? Opinions?

[The_K_Man]

Originally Posted by narcoman

The Vinyl sounds better because they were the intended medium. Thats how they're supposed to sound. The CDs have other issues - too bright for a start!

Uh oh!! repeated GS response alert! There is no information "missing" between samples. As has been discussed on here a million times in a million threads! The short version being - samples are band limited, potentially distorted and carry system noise due to quantisation error. What they don't do is miss information. All issues with digital are to do with the former and not the mythical latter.

+1^

Another reason vinyl sounds better than CD in many cases, is the masters themselves.

The LP masters maximize dynamic range within the limitations of the playback format. The masters for CD and digital files(mp3/AAC) of those SAME SONGS are compressed & limited to maximize loudness! smh..

Remember "Stadium Arcadium", folks?

[ds11]

Originally Posted by narcoman

For the record - the Stones stuff is archived as PCM also. And the multis, where available, are in PT format. Got several of them here.

Hey narcoman, you have Stones multitracks?? Could you please share where you found these?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by ds11

Hey narcoman, you have Stones multitracks?? Could you please share where you found these?

Hi.
Didn't find them. Worked on them (not the originals you understand!! I work in synch so remix many multis for film, advert or game use).

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

I find it interesting and revealing that even after 30 posts and a sense of brooding hostility (not helped by the thread title of course ) nobody actually talked about how these albums sound?!

I would think that an actual personal listening process should be the basis of one's opinion and not the technical process of the remasters.

Do I miss something here?

Doorknocker,

These vinyls sound amazing. I've already listened to Abbey Road five times in the past two weeks as opposed to twice for the the cd (both cd versions) in the past twenty years. The rest of the vinyls are just as awesome.
If you want more details, please let me know

[sat159p1]

Originally Posted by houseofhits

The vinyl wins, every time. There are many reasons for that, here's just one: cd players are encoded with a brick wall filter at 21Khz; records aren't, so communicate more air & space that affects stereo location, depth etc. The Abbey Rd guys did a good job with the 2009 remasters, but for the reasons listed in the previous post, the vinyl reissues will sound better than the cds.

But we are talking about CD rip > vinyl. 16bit/44.1. On vinyl you will have the same "brickwall at 21k" filter. It will not have more information than on the CD! It will have less headroom, more surface noise and lots of clicks and pops (oh, maybe that's the benefit!). And they will degrade with time. Sorry but I don't see any pros of this conversion. And yes, I love vinyl. But that does not make any sense to me.

I have made several masters which were cut from CD matrix at 16/44 and they're exactly what I wrote above. They are just marketing thing.

IMHO of course.

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

But we are talking about CD rip > vinyl. 16bit/44.1. On vinyl you will have the same "brickwall at 21k" filter. It will not have more information than on the CD! It will have less headroom, more surface noise and lots of clicks and pops (oh, maybe that's the benefit!). And they will degrade with time. Sorry but I don't see any pros of this conversion. And yes, I love vinyl. But that does not make any sense to me.

I have made several masters which were cut from CD matrix at 16/44 and they're exactly what I wrote above. They are just marketing thing.

IMHO of course.

Where did you get the information that the Beatles reissues are cd rips? Also, have you heard one?

[codestar]

192k 24 bit has a wider frequency response than tape or the microphones can operate if what I remember about digital sampling is correct. I think the response is something like up to 90khz as long as they didn't muck with it, it should sound fine. My real question is why didn't they keep the old plates? Why would they need to remake those? If they use a different machine to cut the master or use a cleaner path to the machine with more modern equipment it could sound just slightly different enough that someone might care on this site. Vinyl can actually have a response up to 25khz on its first few playbacks, maybe more at 180 grams. I'm sure I ll like it more than the CD .... As long as they didn't #*%^ with it

[Squidly]

Codestar,

I encourage you to get one - maybe your favourite one and compare it to either cd versions, or the Capitol vinyl release. If you don't like it, you can always give it away as a gift to someone, or resell it to a second-hand store. If you like it, you can then decide to get the other ones (like I did). It sure beats theorizing this subject to death here on Gearslutz without ever having even heard one - let alone knowing what EMI engineers actually did.

[narcoman]

hahahahah!!

[Silvertone]

A year or so ago I heard brand new old stock vinyl of the Beatles mono records at Chris Muth's house. Geoff Emerick had just dropped them off. Chris, Jen and I (all 3 mastering engineers) proceeded to open them up and Chris played him on their beautiful turntable and awesome mastering speakers. (The living room in their house is an actual mastering suite. Boys, marry a female engineer if you can, I want my living room to look like that)

I MYSELF IN 40 YEARS HAVE NEVER HEARD THE BEATLES SOUND LIKE THIS. DRUMS, FAT AS FAT CAN BE, SAME WITH THE BASS, THE BLEND OF THE VOCALS WERE TO DIE FOR, THERE WAS NO COMPARISON THESE RELEASES SMOKED ANY CD FORMAT. PERIOD END OF STORY!!! FOR MONO, IT WAS A GREAT LESSON IN HOW "STEREO" A MONO RECORD CAN ACTUALLY SOUND. A REAL EAR OPENING EXPERIENCE I'LL NEVER FORGET.

I only hope that one day all of you can experience the Beatles recorded the way I did.

btw, Chris, Geoff and Jen have been petitioning EMI for over 10 years to let them do the mastering on the mono releases... after all Geoff was there with the boys RECORDING THEM... and he is the man who MIXED the albums. Chris is the most meticulous engineer when it comes to signal path integrity and this was Jen's specialty when she worked for Sony. EMI has said no every time.

[codestar]

Originally Posted by Squidly

Codestar,

I encourage you to get one - maybe your favourite one and compare it to either cd versions, or the Capitol vinyl release. If you don't like it, you can always give it away as a gift to someone, or resell it to a second-hand store. If you like it, you can then decide to get the other ones (like I did). It sure beats theorizing this subject to death here on Gearslutz without ever having even heard one - let alone knowing what EMI engineers actually did.

Absolutely. I'm not afraid the quality. I have been meaning to get rubber soul for a while on vinyl. I was just surprised that on a forum for "professionals" people still think analog can record more information than digital. It has become clear to me that gearslutz is no longer a good source of information because for every person that has something useful to say there are three people that think they know how something works and spread miss information

[totalgear]

I could hardly disagree more with the vinyl proponents but at the same time I respect the vibe that maintains a perspective of what made the current technology, and for that:

Thanks and keep it up!

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by Silvertone

A year or so ago I heard brand new old stock vinyl of the Beatles mono records at Chris Muth's house. Geoff Emerick had just dropped them off. Chris, Jen and I (all 3 mastering engineers) proceeded to open them up and Chris played him on their beautiful turntable and awesome mastering speakers. (The living room in their house is an actual mastering suite. Boys, marry a female engineer if you can, I want my living room to look like that)

I MYSELF IN 40 YEARS HAVE NEVER HEARD THE BEATLES SOUND LIKE THIS. DRUMS, FAT AS FAT CAN BE, SAME WITH THE BASS, THE BLEND OF THE VOCALS WERE TO DIE FOR, THERE WAS NO COMPARISON THESE RELEASES SMOKED ANY CD FORMAT. PERIOD END OF STORY!!! FOR MONO, IT WAS A GREAT LESSON IN HOW "STEREO" A MONO RECORD CAN ACTUALLY SOUND. A REAL EAR OPENING EXPERIENCE I'LL NEVER FORGET.

I only hope that one day all of you can experience the Beatles recorded the way I did.

btw, Chris, Geoff and Jen have been petitioning EMI for over 10 years to let them do the mastering on the mono releases... after all Geoff was there with the boys RECORDING THEM... and he is the man who MIXED the albums. Chris is the most meticulous engineer when it comes to signal path integrity and this was Jen's specialty when she worked for Sony. EMI has said no every time.

Do you know why EMI have given the project to Sean instead? As you know, the mono versions will br out on time for Christmas next year...

[AlexK]

Originally Posted by jimdrake

Vinyl is band limited to 15k ?

Low-passed with a shallow filter at 15~16khz and upwards, but I've seen frequencies up to 40khz when digitising records.

IMO vinyl sounds better than CD, but that's just my subjective opinion. CD is on balance technically superior according to the parameters we are currently using to measure performance in audio.

Like comparing apples and bicycles...

[The_K_Man]

Originally Posted by AlexK

Low-passed with a shallow filter at 15~16khz and upwards, but I've seen frequencies up to 40khz when digitising records.

IMO vinyl sounds better than CD, but that's just my subjective opinion. CD is on balance technically superior according to the parameters we are currently using to measure performance in audio.

Like comparing apples and bicycles...

Yeah, and too had that CD is not being properly utilized, because in terms of dynamics and s/n, recordings made for it should BLOW vinyl out of the water.

[sat159p1]

Originally Posted by Squidly

Where did you get the information that the Beatles reissues are cd rips? Also, have you heard one?

Please read the post I was reffering to. No word about the reissues being a CD rips. That was just general, little offtopic discussion about it

Never was a fan of mono reissues. But maybe I'll give it a try when they finally release it.

[Squidly]

Personally, I'm not a fan of the mono versions either, mainly because I grew up listening to them on stereo, for better or worse!

[JR465]

Originally Posted by ds11

Can't they just make tape copies of the original mono master tapes and do an all-analog vinyl pressing from these duplicates?

Damn how cool would THAT be. Transfer the 1/4" mastertapes to 1/2", then cut from those...

[The_K_Man]

Originally Posted by Squidly

Personally, I'm not a fan of the mono versions either, mainly because I grew up listening to them on stereo, for better or worse!

I'm sure the mono versions are just fine, as are a lot of other artists released in mono.

My issue with mono is that it gets fatiguing to listen to, esp through headphones. I'd rather give my ears a rest by feeding different things to each ear.

Just my $13 bucks...

(two cents doesn't get you into Manhattan any more!! LOL)

[Squidly]

I have the mono cd's, and I do listen to a lot of classical EMI Walter Legge period recordings which are in mono. It's just that when you're used to hearing another version, it's not the same anymore. For example, Lucy In The Sky in the Sky has a flanger on Lennon's voice, whereas in the stereo version, his voice is clean. And I grew up liking the Beatles with that particular version.

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by houseofhits

Infrasonic noise above 100kHz?

Surely you mean supersonic?

[The_K_Man]

Actually I kinda like the idea of Lennon's voice blaring from the dining room and the rhythm section shooting from my living room!

Or Jimi's guitar solos gliding from one side of the space to the other.

It adds that "What The..?" factor to the listening experience when company is over.

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Surely you mean supersonic?

Supersonic = faster than sound.
Infrasonic = below the limit of audible frequencies.
Ultrasonic = above the limit of audible frequencies.

Of course, if removal of the latter two adversely affects sounds one can hear then it's a tough call to say those frequencies don't matter, but that's another well worn debate.

Originally Posted by The_K_Man

I'm sure the mono versions are just fine, as are a lot of other artists released in mono.

The mono versions are fine because for those Beatles albums they were the actual mixes approved by The Beatles and for which time was spent on them.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Silvertone

I only hope that one day all of you can experience the Beatles recorded the way I did.

Hows listening to the mono mixes from the master tapes grab ya