7 April 2013
The first Beatles cd i got was the Yellow Submarine Songtrack album. I really liked the songs sound quality. However when i came to purchase the remastered version of Sgt. Pepper i felt awfully underwhelmed, not by the songs (which are awesome and its my favorite Beatles album) but by the sound quality which lacked the depth of the YSS album. I only recently learnt that the YSS was completely remixed for the originals.
So my question is should they have remixed all the albums like they did for YSS, because frankly I can’t tell the difference between the new remasters and the cd mixes made in the 1980’s.
"We can do what we want, we can live as we choose"
17 December 2012
Unlike you I did hear the difference in the Remasters, however I do get the point you’re making. The Remasters (mono and stereo) are important however, as they present the music as The Beatles and George Martin signed off on it at the time (with a couple of exceptions) they released it, with the best sound quality possible.
The original music had two steps to release. First The Beatles and George Martin/others would record the music. Second George Martin/others and The Beatles would mix that music how they wanted it heard.
The YSS remixes (which I love), take out that second step, and replace it with new people mixing the original tapes. While I have no problems with remixes, you would lose the picture that was originally painted by the group themselves.
Remix by all means, but the Remasters should always be available because they matter – they are their work.
"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
15 August 2012
The ’87 CDs are pretty flat compared to the ’09 remasters.
The YSS is a special case, because of the complete remixing, but the original albums were remastered in 2009 to capture the best elements of the original mixed elements. If you like what you heard on YSS, I’d recommend “Love”, which takes great liberties with the mixes. If you look around, you can still find the 5.1 DVD version as well.
If you compare the ’87s and the ’09s on moderately good audio equipment, you can hear sizable differences. So much to the point that acclaimed needle-drop audiophile bootlegger Dr. Ebbett claimed the ’09s sounded “good enough to make the Ebbetts catalogue solidly inferior”.
E is for 'Ergent'.
29 November 2012
Agreed, I never listen to my ’87 CDs anymore, even though they’ve held up remarkably well in the 20 years I’ve owned them and the 1000s of times I’ve played them. They’re all scratched and dinged and still play fine. But the sound just isn’t there compared to the remasters. And I should say I did not get the stereo remasters (other than the final 3 albums), but rather the mono remasters, which are superior in every way.
1 May 2011
I can also hear the difference with the remasters; they are cleaner sounding, brighter, meaning that you can hear sounds that were otherwise obscured with the ’87 cd’s.
As said above keep the original mixes available and then remix if desired. Let It Be Naked also had remixes but since there was a lot of editing and alternate takes its not the same and remember that the available to buy separately Help ! and Rubber Soul stereo cds are the ’87 Martin remixes. You need the Mono Box to get their original Stereo mixes (I still find that daft).
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
29 November 2012
^it is daft. And honestly, they’re still not as good as the mono mixes of those albums. Another reason I like the mono mixes better is that they didn’t add compression or limiting to them the way they did with the stereo remasters, so you’re getting a more pure sound as well as (what I consider to be) superior mixes.