The Beatles In High Resolution?

<i>I can say that the 24/96 downloads of "All Things Must Pass," "Band On the Run," and "McCartney" are not predictive of deriving greater value with his res Beatles.</i><br />

<br />

Interesting, since I recall the McCartney stuff being listed in the "Hi-res you thought was done well" thread.

<i>The recordings are dated, compressed, distorted, with very little dynamic range.</i><br />

<br />

The master tapes themselves are not compressed. The original CDs were. The new CDs, depending on whom you believe, are either not compressed, or compressed slightly, or compressed slightly in the stereo version but not the mono.<br />

<br />

Re "little dynamic range," that has two possible causes - compression or lack of dynamics in the original. The Beatles had plenty of recordings featuring mainly acoustic music (e.g., "Blackbird"), orchestral backing (e.g., "All You Need is Love," "A Day in the Life"), or multiple sections with sudden changes in loudness ("Strawberry Fields Forever," "Happiness is a Warm Gun"), all of which create wide dynamic range in the originals.<br />

<br />

And of course there is more than just dynamics involved. I think it may have been Willie Weeks the bass player who once talked in an interview about being in the studio with Lennon and hearing <i>that voice</i> over his headphones. I want to hear <i>that voice</i> (and Paul's and George's as well) as clearly as I can.<br />

<br />

Yes, they are dated. They're about the same vintage as, or more recent than, RCA Shaded Dogs and certain Mercury recordings highly prized by collectors for their sound quality. (I'm not claiming the Beatles recordings are the sonic equals of those, but neither are the vast majority of current recordings.)<br />

<br />

But please don't get online to buy them when they come out. It'll leave more bandwidth for me to get through and place my order! ;-)

The McCartney sounds good but it's not on the level of a revelation. The Harrison album is so dated and distorted in its Phil Spectorized recording that it's hardly worth a mention. Of course, the Beatles catalog predates the recording of McCartney.<br />

<br />

Esau

<i>The Harrison album is so dated and distorted in its Phil Spectorized recording that it's hardly worth a mention.</i><br />

<br />

For "Wah Wah," "What is Life," etc., I fully expect that. On my vinyl copy, though, cuts like "If Not For You" and "Apple Scruffs" aren't "wall of sound" at all, so I'd be very disappointed if the high res version didn't give a good account of those. What can you tell me about those cuts in particular?

"Why bother with hi-res for the Beatles? The recordings are dated, compressed, distorted, with very little dynamic range. I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between hi-res and mp3 versions of a Beatles album."<br />

<br />

No the master recordings are actually very good. George Martin and the engineers at EMI back in the 60's knew how to record MUSIC, not just make recordings. For the same reason, a lot of jazz recordings from the 50's and 60's sound great, even today. It's not just about frequency response and various specs, it's about knowing how to capture the sound of musical instruments. Not everyone who works in a recording studio actually knows how to do it.<br />

<br />

I not only can identify the difference between the hi-res versions and the mp3's, I can tell the difference between the 24/44 versions and the 16/44 versions. It's easy. If you can't tell the difference, get your hearing and or system checked.<br />

<br />

I just tested some various Beatles recordings with the Dynamic Range tool in Foobar 2000. Tested old CDs, analogue transcriptions to digital, and all 3 sets of the 2009 releases. DR range between about 9dB to 14dB on the various tracks. That's as good or better dynamic range than most popular music released today.<br />

<br />

"I can say that the 24/96 downloads of "All Things Must Pass," "Band On the Run," and "McCartney" are not predictive of deriving greater value with his res Beatles."<br />

<br />

Disagree. I think they tell us quite a bit about the care with which the hi-res masters were made. If the same team does hi-res Beatles (and it's a sure bet it will be the same team, as it's the same team that did the Beatles remasters), I think we can be sure the quality will be about as good as it can be.

curious to know your thoughts on these recordings.

Time for me to reply :-)<br />

<br />

I haven't heard the various formats (mp3, hi-res, etc..) of the Beatles albums, so I can't speak with authority. If people are saying that the can hear a difference, and that higher res sounds better than lower res, I have to take them at their word. <br />

<br />

By "dated" I meant that the sound quality isn't up to today's standards. There are recordings from the late 50's and early 60's that are not dated, e.g. some of the Mercury recordings, especially the ones on 35mm tape. <br />

<br />

I wouldn't expect the Beatles albums to have much dynamic range. For one thing, compression was a given, right? I doubt that any pop recordings were made in the 60's without compression. A compressor was just a essential as a microphone and a tape recorder.<br />

<br />

Without having made any comparisons, I can still imagine that at least mid-range detail, even in "dated" recordings would improve with higher resolution.<br />

At least, I like it better than the redbook CD. -Paul<br />

<i>I wouldn't expect the Beatles albums to have much dynamic range. For one thing, compression was a given, right? I doubt that any pop recordings were made in the 60's without compression. A compressor was just a essential as a microphone and a tape recorder.</i><br />

<br />

There is a <i>lot</i> of argument about this (regarding compression used in recording the Beatles specifically) on various websites. What sounds halfway reliable to me is that compression was used on Ringo's drums on many tracks.

"There is a lot of argument about this (regarding compression used in recording the Beatles specifically) on various websites. What sounds halfway reliable to me is that compression was used on Ringo's drums on many tracks."<br />

<br />

By compression do you mean tape compression (ie tape saturation) or with the use of a compressor unit?<br />

<br />

<i>By compression do you mean tape compression (ie tape saturation) or with the use of a compressor unit?</i><br />

<br />

The audio engineer who was speaking about this mentioned "pumping," which I would understand to be a characteristic of the use of a compressor unit. My understanding is limited, so I could easily be wrong (or the audio engineer could be full of crap).

like Steve Hoffman's at CES where he plays a private copy of a master tape (uncompressed, no limiting) of a White Album track (I'm So Tired) that is revelatory in so many ways. <br />

<br />

Also, just listen to what Martin Sr and Jr did with the same tapes when producing Beatles Love in 5.1 (mash-ups notwithstanding). The dynamic range and timbre/color is marvelous, even through the obvious clean-up they did. I'll take the whole catalog in Martin & Martin style, thank you.

That is one of a number of extraordinary examples of surround sound done extremely well. It sounds great on the types of speakers more consumer oriented audiophiles and home theater folks are likely to have (meaning satellites placed relatively closer to the listener, rather than using 5 identical speakers and being equidistant from each in some mythical room that very few people actually own) in that what comes through the surrounds isn't the heavy drums but really a more ambient stereo atmosphere in the strict sense. I think some of the earlier surround mixes failed to take into account what consumers would actually be listening to high resolution multichannel music when the formats first came out: namely that the surrounding speakers would not be the size of the fronts, nor need they be. If set up in the home as per dolby placement recommendations they are so much closer to the listener it seems obvious they needn't be the same size. Ok my rant and rabid agreement with Ted on the quality of the Love Remasters.

My system is in fact five identical SP Tech Continuum/Revelations that run full range and are world class transducers, so I will argue that Beatles love 5.1 sounds great with that "mythical" setup, in that it presupposes full range alla round. This isn't some Dolby Digital or small-monitor-in-the-rears kind of setup. The mix ISN'T ambient stereo atmosphere, it's heavy drums and heavy aggressive mixes that were intended for the Cirque De Soleil audience for wow value, yet brings across the Beatles textures and timbres like no others IMO. I've never heard anyone call Beatles Love 5.1 DVD-Audio hirez mix anything but aggressive...it was meant that way.

""Why bother with hi-res for the Beatles? The recordings are dated, compressed, distorted, with very little dynamic range. I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between hi-res and mp3 versions of a Beatles album."<br />

<br />

No the master recordings are actually very good. George Martin and the engineers at EMI back in the 60's knew how to record MUSIC, not just make recordings. For the same reason, a lot of jazz recordings from the 50's and 60's sound great, even today. It's not just about frequency response and various specs, it's about knowing how to capture the sound of musical instruments."<br />

<br />

Exactly. I have the Beatles Collection on vinyl in a good UK press, and it definitely doesn't sound compressed. In fact, the dynamics make the mix not all that harmonic, some instruments stand out a little too much for their own good and for the good of the whole, and I for one would forgive the remaster engineers for using slight compression as they "confessed" to doing. <br />

<br />

The quality varies from album to album, but often they do sound very good and undistorted. 'A Hard Days Night' is exceptionally smooth, also the smoothest in the digital remaster, and the strings' sound on Strawberry Fields is top notch.

I just was commenting that it works well with more typical consumer setups. My rears are actually pretty good and yes the drum does come through them, I am just saying the floor standing speakers handle what presumably is a frequency more in tune with what a sub would be handling--and in that case those frequencies typically don't have an audible 'source'...why the placement of the a subwoofer matters less than say the surrounds. Perhaps my understanding of the way that the sound is being handled is off. By stereo in the strictest sense I meant that stereo originally did not refer to the number of channels but how sounds worked together and that multichannel is just as stereo as so-called stereo. That is what I meant by that. The sound just completely envelopes one in the soundscape and using equipment that is set-up according to dolby guidelines. I am presuming that this is the environment most people listen to multichannel music in. I shouldn't have presumed so! After all there are some serious audio pro's in here that know much more than I. Let's say I represent Joe Consumer with the average <10K HT/Audio Set-up if you throw in all the doo dads that run it. I was hoping to pay the album a compliment but forgive me if it did not come across like that!

Greetings,<br />

<br />

For those of you in this thread who are wondering what actually went on during the Beatles recording sessions you might want to check out the book mentioned in this previous thread:<br />

<br />

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Beatles-Stereo-and-Mono-Box-Sets-Read-Book<br />

<br />

Regards,<br />

<br />

Mister Wednesday

I went back and listened to "Apple Scruffs" and "If Not For You" on "All things Must Pass" and found them to sound better than the heavily processed Phil Spector influenced tracks. The instrumentation is much sparser also, which adds to the clarity. <br />

<br />

I also listened to "I Am the Walrus," the 24/44.1 remaster and the 24/96 version on "The Beatles Love." Ringo's drums are more prominent on the "Love" version, consistent with the basic approach that the engineers took with the "Love" recordings in general(i.e., using the drums as the glue to link things together musically). "Walrus" is somewhat different from the rest of "Love," as the song is essentially presented intact without splicing in sounds from other Beatles recordings. The "Love" version, however, also has subtle improvements in the clarity of John Lennon's vocals. All in all, it's apparent that the Beatles in 24/96 sounds better than the Beatles in 24/44.1 (and 16/44.1). <br />

<br />

I'm humbled and I stand corrected. If and when the Beatles catalog comes out in 24/192(still a big if), it will probably come as a download.<br />

<br />

Esau

If I wanted to buy the best versions of Beatles on CD what should I Be looking For?

"The "Love" version, however, also has subtle improvements in the clarity of John Lennon's vocals. All in all, it's apparent that the Beatles in 24/96 sounds better than the Beatles in 24/44.1 (and 16/44.1)."<br />

<br />

Comparing "Love" at 24/96 with the recent 16-24/44 remasters isn't apples with apples (excuse the pun).<br />

<br />

Love wasn't a remaster, rather it was a complete reworking so it's expected things like vocals will be pushed for more clarity. <br />

<br />

BTW, to me "Love" sounded rather beige.

Isn't Abbey Road cool? I spent a morning there about 7 years ago and it was almost like visiting a religious site for this huge Beatles fan. Of course there have also been some glorious classical recordings made there as well. I was just listening to an EMI lp of Britten's Four Sea Interludes last night.<br />

<br />

I'm waiting for a promised 24 bit library of their work. Like you, it is my understanding that this is as good as it will get. I've not heard it yet but heard it described as very worthwhile if not the Holy Grail.<br />

<br />

By the way, I was very touched by our recent email. You actually said I wasn't an idiot. Or maybe it was that there are actually people worse off than me technically. Regardless, it filled me with pride. <br />

<br />

Seriously, have a good trip home.<br />

<br />

Rick

surround, or a lesser DTS/DD surround, or just the cd version?

This has come up several times on this forum, so for complete clarity:<br />

<br />

"Love" isn't a hi-res remaster. For Love they took the individual tracks, digitized them, cleaned them up, and remixed them. So it's a remix, and it's own master.<br />

<br />

The 2009 remasters are simply digital transcriptions/remasters of the original tape masters. No work on the individual tracks, no remixing. <br />

<br />

So by defintion (even without the editing and mashups)the "Love" recordings were going to sound very different than the "Remasters"<br />

<br />

I personally would love to hear a remix of the Beatles catalog, I think it could sound even better than the remasters. But judging from what's been going on at Apple, it doesn't look like there's any inclination to go in this direction.

Last week on about Sept. 9, 2011 I received an e-mail from Graham at HDTracks. He informed me that HDTracks IS IN THE PROCESS of Beatles albums in Hi-Res!! I don't have anymore details at this time, but here's hoping they sound great!

<i><br />

"Last week on about Sept. 9, 2011 I received an e-mail from Graham at HDTracks. He informed me that HDTracks IS IN THE PROCESS of Beatles albums in Hi-Res!! I don't have anymore details at this time, but here's hoping they sound great!"<br />

</i><br />

<br />

Wow, that's interesting. I hope Hi-res means at least 24-96. And not that Apple USB stick resolution. Preferably 24-192 copies of the digital masters from a couple years ago.<br />

<br />

I'd still pay more for discs and artwork than downloads only.