Anyone regret getting rid of your 80s Beatles cds?

I bought the HMV box set versions of the '87 CD's as they came out. I had the good fortune to have the Yellow Submarine box autographed by George Martin who made an appearance at the main London branch of HMV and autographed copies of the newly issued Yellow Submarine HMV box set... Because the HMV box sets were so beautifully packaged, I never got rid of them.

 

Yes, I gave the 87 versions to my GM. When the bank was closing 5 years later, I wasn't one of the ones to stay the extra 3 months. Bastard!

 

The 2009 remastered cds improved the sound using modern technology. Why is it so hard to for people to let go of the past and move forward.

 

The 1987/88 cds were fine and sound great. Why is it so hard for people to resist buying the same music year after year.

See? Sounds smug and self important, doesn't it? Like I know what's best for everyone.

 

Interestingly, for many years I heard the same thing until @lukpac proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the differences between the two CDs are subtle at best. Go to the link below and try the blind test for yourself but before reading ahead where the samples are later revealed.

Best sounding Beatles "Abbey Road" on CD?

We are human and as humans our perception of sound is influenced by personal beliefs and expectation. I couldn't stand listening to the 87 Abbey Road but now, after the enlightenment, I can enjoy it. In any event the 2009 CD is my go to version of Abbey Road, I prefer it to the 87 or B/T CD or any LP copy - to my ears the 87/BT CDs sound most similar to my first pressing UK LP.

 

This is a good point. And I agree in the case of the Beatles. But it's also the type of thing George Lucas thought, which led him to add horrific CGI to Star Wars. There is something to be said for original releases, whether or not they were "perfect" to begin with.

 

Yes, but let me work on that analogy a little: what Lucas did with Star Wars would be the equivalent of adding a rapper to a Beatles song, or some modern instrument.

The remasters is more like the restoration of a movie using modern technology, in which everything looks more detailed, the colours pop out, the little spots and cellulloid defects are removed... Sometimes, purist cinephiles contend that the movies lose their atmosphere or character with these re-masterings, but general audiences generally love them.

 

Bought them all on the day of release in the 80's and I have no reason to get rid of them. I bought all the 2009's on day of release and I have no reason to get rid of them.

 

I'm actually one who prefers analogue film over digital. It breathes and is alive in a way digital cannot be. But that's another discussion. You're right about Lucas; though he himself would say you are overstating the case and see his additions as consistent with his space "vision." Still, a turd is a turd.

 

I don't regret getting rid of them. Not even one little bit. I like my remasters.

 

Well stated.

And I'll go one step further- the goal of recorded music is to recreate as best as possible the sound made in the studio on the day it was recorded. The goal isn't to preserve the sound it made over a battery operated AM radio with a 2" mono speaker. The music shouldn't be held hostage by it's dated technology, and audiophiles should embrace the advances in technology that set the original recordings free, not stay locked in the past as if the new versions have broken some covenant. The 09 versions of the Beatles catalog have the clarity and definition heard in the studio back in the 60's, it's amazing that anyone would resist them on the grounds of artistic heresy.

 

Not exactly. The goal of recorded music is to recreate as best as possible the sound that the artist wants heard. That may or may not be the sound made in the studio. In the case of the Beatles, "not" was quite often the answer. Echo/reverb, ADT, compression, EQ, etc. All intentional changes to the sound made in the studio.

It's unclear what "dated technology" you speak of. The biggest changes between the 1987/8 CDs and the 2009 CDs have to do with technique, not technology. The use (or not) of EQ, compression, and noise reduction. Narrowing or folding down of channels. Those are matters of aesthetics, not technology. I reject, for example, the 2009 stereo remaster of A Hard Day's Night because of narrowing and EQ that makes it sound unlike various previous releases, and to my ears, inferior.

 

I feel pretty good about saying that the Beatles didn't "want" 4-track technology, they didn't "want" monophonic mixes, they didn't "want" scratches and ticks and pops and hiss on their work. Sure, in 1964 it was as good as it got, and mono discs and mono record players were the medium that delivered their content to consumers, but the Beatles were always pushing for better quality sound, better recording techniques, better equipment, etc. That's what I mean by "dated technology". The Beatles surely would have recorded on 48 tracks in digital if it were available back then.

The 09 remasters were the biggest leap towards perfection in this regard, not the 87's. George Martin was consulted for that project very late in the game and didn't contribute much as evidenced by how much detail was unearthed in the 09 set. If a handful of the 200+ 09 tracks are a step back, well, that happens in a project of this scale. Taken as a whole, however, the 09 canon is superior to the 87 canon. With both sets in easy circulation, it's not hard for us to pick and choose which versions are our go-to's, it's a matter of personal preference. For me, I deleted all my 87 rips from my library, ripped the 09's, put the CD's in the attic, and never looked back.

Interesting read, the NY Times review of the 87 project with quotes from George Martin:

BEATLES ON CD: YEAH, YEAH, NAH

"During the four years between the arrival of CD and the release of these disks, Beatles collectors wondered how EMI would present the Beatles on CD. Unfortunately, EMI seems to have devoted less thought to its CD program than many of the disks' prospective buyers have.

The transfers are fine, and the music is as exhilarating as ever. But as has often been the case, one gets the impression that EMI is intent on providing the minimum and feigning authenticity, largely because its executives haven't properly thought the series through. It's a pity, really, because with a little effort, EMI could have lived up to the advance fanfare for these CD's, and made the series something special."

 

Regret is a strong word, but I wish I still had them. But I only had Revolver, Pepper's and White Album. This forum has taught me to keep all versions of everything. Now I have every album and so much more, in the newer masterings. I didn't become a big Beatles fan until about 2009 or so. I'm a late bloomer.

 

Except the technology in and of itself wasn't the limiting factor. That is to say, the technology of the day was able to reproduce very realistic sound. But that wasn't the sound George Martin, the engineers involved, or The Beatles themselves wanted. Putting one's voice through a Leslie speaker or turning the treble on the desk all the way up are interesting techniques, but I wouldn't say either of them result in "better quality sound". They are *unique* sounds, but not natural or "high fidelity" sounds.

Regardless, the technology used at the time is what it is.

As you suggest picking and choosing, it's interesting that you would subsequently ignore the original CDs entirely.

I disagree the remasters are any sort of "leap towards perfection" though. They are the vision of the team involved in producing them. That vision is an opinion, not some sort of objective reality. If you prefer them, that's fine, but it's wrong to suggest they are somehow more ideal or correct.

 

Wow. Do you also prefer analogue broadcasting over DTV?

 

The 2009 Stereo Remasters sound far superior to the 87's.

I agree. The 2009 Stereo cd's sound better than the 87's. The clarity is improved. Some folks just cannot bear to admit this fact.

 

I agree with you 100%. When I compare the 09's to the 87's there is a clear improvement in the clarity on the 09's. You can hear subtle nuances hidden on the older cd's. How it that a bad thing?

 

If the 2009 Stereo albums have compression and limiting does that mean that the songs sound bad?The 09's sound more modern than the 87's but they also have more clarity and are less muddy.

 

It would have to be a fact for them to admit to it.

 

The Beatles and GM were surely influenced by the technology of the times, meaning that since they knew their songs were going to be consumed on mono hi-fi systems and tinny AM radios of the day that they and EMI recorded/mixed/mastered with an influence towards that limiting technology. We know how the Beatles only sat in on the mono mixing sessions, how they were worried about the needle jumping out of Paperback Writer, how they would mix 4 tracks down to 1 to make more room for overdubs and lead guitar, etc. That's what I'm referring to. It stands to reason that there was more detail and nuance buried in the mix because of these limitations not only of the recording technology of the day but the compromises made in the mixing process to optimize the mono/AM/vinyl delivery medium which was a far cry from the stereo/surround/digital potential today.

As all of us tend to, I'm just offering my rationale for eschewing the 87's for the 09's and certainly we each can make our own decisions. I ignored the original CD's because a) to this day I'm not aware that there is a better complete album or single track of the 212 selections worthy of consideration over the newer versions and b) I have about 15 different Beatles playlists which I listen to more often than complete albums and mixing 87's and 09's on the same playlists would probably produce inconsistencies in volume and EQ that would lessen the overall experience. Let me know if I'm making poor choices and I'll be happy to reconsider. The decision to punt the 87's entirely was something I spent about 10 minutes on 9 years ago and haven't thought about since.

 

Same here

 

Yet none of that has to do with one set of CDs vs another. The mixes are the mixes, regardless of the technology used, or how we think those involved would have made things sound had they had access to today's technology. The goal then is to present those mixes in the best light possible. The sticky thing is "best light possible" is a subjective decision.

 

And "sticky" it is. There are a few of the 2009 CDs that lack a certain musical presence, IMO.

 

I believe there is a "connoisseur effect" going on here.

There are people who swear that the prior generation BMW 3 Series is superior to the current one. There are people who only purchase vintage Rolex watches. There are people who think everything ages like fine wine and that "older" is always "better". "I'll teach you kids a thing or two (shakes cane)!"

Now, when it comes to music, I agree, "older" is mostly better. The Beatles 50 years hence are better than any modern rock band, for example. But when it comes to the content delivery system, there is no way that "older" is better because the listening medium has changed. Unless one listens to the Beatles today on 1962-era mono record players and AM radios in which case the 87's are certainly more optimized for that than modern digital systems.