Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Really? No one has posted about the 9/9/09?


gizeh68

Recommended Posts

Can't believe it! Anyway, has anyone bought the new Beatles 2009 remasters? I did and LOVE them. I did a/b comparisons with my amateur recording studio and found some interesting differences. Using an RMS plugin for Cubase, I was able to see that average volume is certainly increased. I think the recordings are sharper as well.

 

Since they ran all of the recordings through modern mastering equipment, it makes it easier to listen for the small nuances than before. The 1987 masters made it difficult to hear the "pops" and "sizzles" of the natural recordings, those things that are close to the noisefloor. These are sounds that are played very quietly, sounds that are very present in live shows but disappear on tape due to that horrible thing called "Dolby Noise Reduction" and getting beaten to the punch by all frequencies above the average level of sound.

 

But with the new mastering equipment (which, I should say, probably cost more than my house), they were able to raise the loudest peaks only slightly, yet raise the quietest signals between the noisefloor and the average level to as much as two times the peak so that most of those quiet frequencies are finally boosted to the mean so we can hear them.

 

 

In short, you hear more things than you did before, things that were once buried in the mix. Most beatles fans grew up listening to this stuff, and year in/year out they sound the same with nothing new. Its fun to finally hear something and go "hey, that's new!". Even if it is just a mistaken riff, a cough, or John taking a big breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have them all already. Many times over...

 

Me too, but that probably won't stop me from ordering the mono remasters, at least. I wouldn't mind having all of their official releases in the same, consistent format, as opposed to what I currently have (some on vinyl, a few on cassette, several on CD, others only mp3). Plus, I'd like to *hear* how much better those mono versions are, an opinion I've heard many times over the years, though I've never been able to do an actual comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought about it, I was going to post on the subject but I did not buy the set.

 

USA Today had an of article about the remastering and it was quite interesting, I contemplated buying the remasters but i did not. It helped that Amazon was sold out.

 

I have all of their CDs and some in vinyl, plus a few singles so I don't think I want to spend the cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I bought the stereo box and it's a major upgrade over the lousy 87 releases. The sound of early albums definetly are improved and bass and drums really up in the mix. Of course these early albums are still 2 and 4 track recordings so its the source that sometimes limits what they could do. The studio years really get the benefit of improved technology with Abbey Road and The White Album sounding as if they were recorded today. My brother was able to get his hands on the mono set and the next time he's in town we are gonna have a listening fest and compare the difference in the mixes. He did tell me after listening to all the mono CDs that Sgt. Pepper in mono was amazing (this mix being the one the beatles had approved) and the improvment over the stereo was remarkable. Many instruments and sounds he had never heard before. If your a fan of the fabs music I'd say yeah well worth the purchase price. cookie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...