Article: The Beatles In High Resolution?

[labjr]

<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.

[Paul R]

Doesn't add anything substantial to Chris's story, but the description of recording <i>Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band</i> is kinda cool. <br />

<br />

-Paul<br />

<br />

http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/electronics-news/cover-story-come-together/15895/<br />

<br />

[firedog]

Unless Apple is about to release it's own hi-res versions, I bet this is simply a download of what's on the USB stick -24-44.1 (It does sound superior to the CD releases, though).<br />

<br />

No way Apple is going to let HDT release hi-res before it does. They might go for a simultaneous hi-res release, but not a chance they are giving it to HDT first. <br />

<br />

In any case, it's encouraging that they are releasing something from the Beatles for outside download, and not from iTunes. Bodes well for the future.

[firedog]

http://www.recordstoreday.com/SpecialRelease/5092

[Zakus]

"The Beatles and producer George Martin put the most care into the mono recordings. The mono versions were the mixes they always intended people to hear."<br />

<br />

In 2009 I bought Sgt Peppers Band remastered CD. When I got home I thought what have they done, they've changed everything, this isn't just remastered it's also remixed,how dare they. It sounds awful nothing like the original until I twigged it was the stereo version. Forced me to buy the mono set which is the sound I grew up with. So disappointed that the 24bit release was the stereo which had nothing to do with the world wide releases.

[ted_b]

in 2009; it was remixed in 1967. It, like the White album, is a different entire mix in mono vs stereo, which is why they are both worth owning over the last 40 years. My point is that your "this isn't just remastered, it's also remixed, how dare they" is an issue with George Martin 44 years ago.<br />

<br />

The Apple USB 24 bit version is indeed the stereo box set only, though. Not having a 24 bit mono version is worth a complaint, I agree.

[firedog]

On both Sgt Pepper and the White Album.<br />

<br />

But the mono is also good. I don't really understand how someone could hear one of the versions and think it was "ruined".<br />

<br />

Unfortunately because of the reactions of people like Zakus, we will never get a true remix of the original tracks. A shame, because the all of the albums up to Revolver could definitely be improved with a remix. <br />

The remix done to the Yellow Submarine soundtrack on the DVD is a good example. In addition, it they went back to a remix, they could also improve the SQ by working on individual tracks and not the master tape.

[Zakus]

At the risk of getting further flamed perhaps you should re-read my post or perhaps it wasn't clear enough. What prompted the post was not that the stereo versions were awful but that the mono versions that I prefer were not released at 24bit.<br />

<br />

As mentioned above the stereo mixes were made with the American market in mind where stereo's were starting to gain hold. Here in Os I don't even remember if and when the stereo mixes were released or even my first stereo but now know that it is the mono sound that is etched deeply in my mind. <br />

<br />

With that in mind I naively thought that the 2 mixes were the same, one mono one stereo. Imagine my horror that in 2009 I thought they had not only remastered but also remixed to a very different sound than what was played here on the radio and peoples turntables. A quick google set out the history of the 2 versions. Both are legitimate and have their place. I prefer the mono because that is MY history and also because of the Beatles input. Other have different listening histories and prefer the stereo's. Fair enough.<br />

<br />

"Unfortunately because of the reactions of people like Zakus, we will never get a true remix of the original tracks."<br />

<br />

Now we come to another point which could be a whole thread in itself.<br />

<br />

Personally remastering especially poor early analogue to digital transfers on many early CD's does improve and enhance the SQ for modern digital playback. Remixing now that is a whole new ball game. Not sure about that one at all! The thought does seem abhorrent to me but what an interesting debate. Reactions from muso's would be enlightening.<br />

<br />

<br />

[ted_b]

your words, which, when strung together as you had them ("this isn't just remastered, it's also remixed, how dare they"), meant you thought the stereo 2009 remaster was remixed at the time too. It wasn't. Period. Other thoughts and clarifications came out in your later post.<br />

<br />

I personally love the Beatles catalog as is, but have publically (here) embraced YSS (and Beatles Love for that matter, mash-ups notwithstanding) for its clarity and newness, and as far as YSS is concerned I never felt the remixes were anything apart from "cleaning up" (and I don't mean No-noise) . Hey Bulldog, Nowhere Man and Think For Yourself have never sounded better. If Giles and George could have a whack at some actual albums it would be quite exciting.

[Audio_ELF]

Ted, With respect you are only quoting part of the posters comments which change why he said...<br />

<br />

"When I got home I thought what have they done, they've changed everything, this isn't just remastered it's also remixed,how dare they. It sounds awful nothing like the original until I twigged it was the stereo version. Forced me to buy the mono set which is the sound I grew up with. "<br />

<br />

To me that's perfectly clear. At first he though they must have been remixes until he realised the mono mix he was used to was different from the stereo mix he had purchased (also from 1969). <br />

<br />

Eloise

[latitude94941]

I'm interested in buying YSS based on your comments. Is there a high resolution version that can be ripped from DVD, or should I get the CD version?

[ted_b]

who is a Beatle fan and had NEVER heard the stereo Pepper!? LOL.<br />

<br />

Also, the stereo was released at the same time as the mono, so his "mono was the worldwide release" statement also got me to respond. <br />

<br />

Yes, the Apple USB 24 bit release could have had the mono box included, that seemed an oversight. And I'm as hirez-for-all as the next guy (created and run my own hirez forum) but I find the 24 bit Beatles stereo catalog to only be hinting at what the master tapes were all about. After hearing masters of uncompressed demos (White album, etc) from the likes of the vaults of Steve Hoffman, I yearn for the real unearthing someday.

[ted_b]

you could rip the multichannel snippets from the remastered movie, too. And remember, it's not the 1968 Yellow Submarine (with movie music) it's Yellow Submarine Songtrack, made for the 1999 rerelease of the movie.

[Johnny Moondog]

I'm 57 years young and have loved and worn out the grooves of the Capital LP series, followed by the Parlophone LP imports, and "The Collection" half-speed masters from Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab.<br />

<br />

I then moved on to the Dr. Ebbets needle drop CDs from The Beatles Collection (British "Blue Box" LPs). On 09.09.09 I picked up both the stereo and mono box sets. Somehow I initially missed the announcement of the 24-bit USB version, but jumped all over that when they crossed my path.<br />

<br />

I'm also a huge fan of the remixes found on Yellow Submarine Songbook and LOVE. For me, those remixes are a tease and I want more! Not the mash ups, but the straight remixes. With the growing availability of high resolution titles available I've got my fingers crossed.<br />

<br />

There is a fun thread on the subject over at the Steve Hoffman forums:<br />

<br />

"What needs to happen next with the Beatles catalogue"<br />

<br />

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=254544<br />

<br />

[Zakus]

who is a Beatle fan and had NEVER heard the stereo Pepper!? LOL.<br />

<br />

Well what a welcome to computeraudiophile. I was a huge beatle fan in the 60's and 70's and never heard of the stereo mixes so I genuflect to you.<br />

<br />

Why would I, teenager early 20's pretend hippy, beatles thrashed with what at that time were the versions on the record stands and played on the radio. Eventually moved on to other music. <br />

<br />

Then came along Let it Be, Naked, pricking my interest. Different to the original but close enough to be recognizable. Then comes George's stereo mixes sold seperately to the box sets. Bought one, but at times to me unrecognizable. Purchasing the mono set has now brought me new hours of listening pleasure reliving my youth but with vastly better sound (not just the remaster but also hardware).<br />

<br />

Again it is disappointing that the mono remastered were never released at 24bit. <br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[ted_b]

to take the conversation a little lighter. No need to genuflect to me or anyone here, please.<br />

<br />

I am truly surprised that someone, like me, growing up in the 60's, etc had never heard the 44 yr old stereo Sgt Pepper sometime moving forward. It's the version I bought in 1967 (as my brother owned the mono, I think). When the White Album came out it was a no-brainer for me to ask for it, as a 14 yr old in 1968(Christmas present), in stereo. I think back then the monos were $2.99 and the stereos were $3.69 (more for the double White Album of course). Ah, inflation!<br />

<br />

Anyway, welcome to CA, despite my mis-step. It's a great forum, and we welcome any Beatle fan, mono or otherwise. <br />

<br />