Log In
Register
12.01am
14 June 2016
Offline
I didn't find a thread like this after a search, but if there is a similar thread I'm sorry.
So I've heard a lot of people talk about the 2009 remasters as being very different from the original versions of the songs. Just how different are the 2009 remasters? Are they actually that different, or is this a "Yellow Submarine Songtrack " situation where the songs are just slightly different?
Here | There | Everywhere
The one and only Billy Shears (AKA Paul's Replacement)
2016:
2017:
"He still remains active while being away."
5.44am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online 
The 2009 remasters went back and cleaned up the tracks, removing a ton of sonic crap, grime etc to make the tracks sound much cleaner, brighter etc - and they do (unless you supposedly listen to the high end at 67,000 herts or whatever it is with the lights off thru a $48,000 pair of headphones and then they are utterly crap). They are the same however as what was released in the 60's.
For the 'Yellow Submarine Songtrack ' they went back and completely remixed the tracks, they are not the same as what was released in the 60's.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
William Shears Campbell, Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedars"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.28am
28 March 2014
Offline Unfortunately Digitized ADD, instead of Analog AAA mix, but boy, they sure sound awesome to me! 
Maybe some day, they will make SACD CDs that are AAD ( I know, I know, a very Technical overview......)
The following people thank Bongo for this post:
William Shears Campbell
BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms! 
12.17pm
3 August 2012
Offline There are a few small things that they changed (for better or for worse) such as making the "one, two, three, fah" intro of ISHST cleaner, and removing the distortion on John's scream at 4:27 on 'I Want You (She's So Heavy)'.
But I'm pretty sure that the panning of instruments and the general mixing is identical to the originals, apart from, obviously, Help ! and Rubber Soul which use the 1987 remixes.
The following people thank pepperland for this post:
Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedarsTimes I find it hard to say / With useless words getting in my way
8.54pm
23 August 2016
Offline I posted something similar to this in another thread. When they re-released the Beatles 1 CD last year, it wasn't just a remaster - they completely remixed every song. This is similar to what they did with the Yellow Submarine Songtrack in 1999 and the Anthology videos. They told everyone they didn't want to remix the catalog when it all came out in 2009. But now it's apparent it was a big cash in. Of course they are going to remix the catalog. First they release everything remastered and we all buy it. Now they are starting to remix songs. They know they can re-release the whole catalog again - remixed. And I'd be all for it. I've loved everything remixed for The Beatles. Have you heard how amazing Nowhere Man is on Yellow Submarine or the new Paperback Writer on '1'? If the new demixing technology really evolves and can be used as intended, it could be incredible. No more drums on the left speaker and singing in the right. What I'd love to see is the ability to demix bounced down tracks. That seems impossible, but if they can, there is no limit on how great the songs will sound.
For those who don't know, normally the band would record to 4 tracks. So let's say they are working on the backing track for a song with drums, bass, and guitars on those 4 tracks. Now where do the vocals go? What about solos? Percussion? They have to bounce or mix down those 4 tracks down to 1 track to open up 3 new tracks. So after you bounce them down, that's it, you can't mix that original backing track anymore - you can't pan the bass left or the drums a certain way. If they can demix these bounced down tracks, they will be able to put instruments anywhere in the stereo spectrum and even more importantly - make the individual track louder or clearer or do whatever they want to it. Because The Beatles are treated like no other band when it comes to taking time to working on their recordings, you can bet it will be top quality.
The following people thank Ram4 for this post:
Dingle Lad7.16am
28 February 2020
Offline Bongo said
Unfortunately Digitized ADD, instead of Analog AAA mix, but boy, they sure sound awesome to me!
How can they be DDD when the sources were analogue tapes? I'd say ADD
What is happening? And tell me how you've been.
8.14am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline They created digital safety masters in 1987 and they were what was used for the 2009 stereo and mono remasters. Only the 2014 mono vinyl remaster used the original analogue master tapes.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Dingle Lad"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
6.58pm
28 February 2020
Offline Ron Nasty said
They created digital safety masters in 1987 and they were what was used for the 2009 stereo and mono remasters. Only the 2014 mono vinyl remaster used the original analogue master tapes.
So they'd actually be ADDD
What is happening? And tell me how you've been.
