Latest Thread Images

Original vs. Remastered Albums?
Aug 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM Post #137 of 159
He was disputing also that the re-remastering was any better in quality than the earlier original mastering . But in the intervening time as I found in the previous post the US got different versions of the box sets I did not know this.Under the Capitol label there was issued {the Beatles] Volume 1 and volume 2-2004 and 2006.as well I take that to mean these were in addition to the main re remastering? According to posts on another website also was talk about how the US actually got better re-remastering than the UK issue. This seemingly applied to the early recordings which were done in a more faithful version than the UKs but the later Beatles recordings were very good[in his opinion] . So there seems to be some mystery over this . The poster I think gave 4+ a half stars to the latest re remastering marked down because of the earlier re recordings. Although the US version got better marks for the earlier     re recordings . Maybe some body can figure this out . Its getting complicated and the recording field isn't my strong point. --Maybe I should point out to save confusion we are talking about all the re recordings on the one box set  and by earlier recordings I mean --Please Please  me and the next several original LP recordings into CDs  in  the same box set. 
 
Aug 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM Post #138 of 159
I keep saying it, but there are only two remasterings of Beatles material. The original flat transfers done for individual CD release in the late 80s, and the recent Stereo Box set. Of those, most audiophiles prefer the flat transfer because the Stereo Box is slightly compressed.
 
Aug 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM Post #139 of 159
I read the Beatles Wiki by James N Periman who seems to go along with what you said as to the remasterings although he quotes other pressings from Japan. But he also says  listening on Naim Amps and Quad electrostatics that some of the vinyl  LP early pressings are better than the some of the CDs that wont go down well in objectives cafe. So that would make any comment from him suspect including his agreement with you? I looked at the mono scope graphs  and they looked better than the stereo versions of two songs with more detail showing. So I have to agree with the scope display.  
 
Aug 25, 2013 at 4:15 PM Post #140 of 159
The MFSL LPs were well mastered and pressed on high grade vinyl. Those would probably come the closest. But if you take the original CD release and do a little bit of judicious equalization, you can make them sound just as good or better than the MFSL LPs.

In the recent remasterings, the mono box was much better than the stereo box.
 
Mar 17, 2015 at 6:39 PM Post #143 of 159
There isn't sound on LPs either, just tiny little wiggly scratches in the plastic. And there isn't music on musical scores, just funny little ink blots on lines.
 
Apr 2, 2015 at 5:37 PM Post #145 of 159
boblt29 said:
  bought the box set of beatles stereo remastered . i think it came out in 2009, anyway, it sounded MUCH clearer and crisper than original, 
Click to expand...

 
That's because it's louder and slightly compressed. 
wink.gif

 
Apr 2, 2015 at 7:13 PM Post #147 of 159
He's right. The first CD release was a straight transfer off the original master with no alteration. The newer stereo box supposedly has some tiny edits to remove little clicks and bumps (but I'll be darned if I can notice any of those fixes.) The bigger difference is that the dynamic range is more compressed in the stereo box than the original release. It isn't a lot of compression. There is no reason to buy the other mastering if you have one of them already.
 
Apr 12, 2016 at 1:37 PM Post #150 of 159
bigshot said:
  He's right. The first CD release was a straight transfer off the original master with no alteration. The newer stereo box supposedly has some tiny edits to remove little clicks and bumps (but I'll be darned if I can notice any of those fixes.) The bigger difference is that the dynamic range is more compressed in the stereo box than the original release. It isn't a lot of compression. There is no reason to buy the other mastering if you have one of them already.
Click to expand...

 
Greetings:
 
 
I have uncovered some information suggesting that at least some of
the 1987 Beatle transfers to CD might not have been as "flat" as we
were led to believe.
 
Following is a link to DR Database analysis of a needle-drop of
the 1969 English vinyl LP release of Abbey Road:
 
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/107500
 
 
And next is a link to DR Database analysis of CDP 7 46446 2, the
1987 CD release of Abbey Road:
 
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/35470
 
 
As can be seen, there is more than just one dB difference
between the total & track dynamic ranges of the 1987 CD
and those of the aforementioned 1969 vinyl LP. 
 
I verified the stats for the 1987 CD myself in Foobar2000,
which likely was used for the analysis of that CD in the
DR Database, and probably for the early vinyl LP.
 
This would suggest that some processing(dynamics, EQ)
was applied during the transfer to the highly anticipated
CD collection of the Beatles in 1987.  Again, differences of
1 dB or less between the CD and the LP can be disregarded.
But the difference in this Abbey Road case(DR10 for the CD
vs DR13 for the English vinyl) is cause for alarm -
and disappointment.  It means that what is on the 1987 CD
does not sound exactly like what was released on LP 18
years prior.
 
Happily this was not the case with the first release on CD
of "Sgt. Pepper's":  A couple tracks on that CD score
slightly more dynamic than the original vinyl, again, by
1dB DR value, so it is probably insignificant, and positively
indicative of a truly *flat* transfer* of that album to CD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top