Anyone regret getting rid of your 80s Beatles cds?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Price.pittsburgh, Aug 9, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fumi

    fumi Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I've kept all mine. Some of the 2009 remasters are good too.
     
  2. jsayers

    jsayers Just Drifting....

    Location:
    Horse Shoe, NC
    I also gave away most of my original Beatles cd's, but kept Pepper's, Abbey Rd and the two Past Masters cd's.
     
  3. Blue Cactus

    Blue Cactus Forum Resident

    Location:
    Illinois
    Regret getting rid of them? Sorta' but not really.

    The only one's I wish I still had are Revolver, Pepper, MMT and Let It Be.

    I did keep the 30th anniversary White Album though. It's not bad.
     
  4. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    I think you're generating a false scenario because you don't want to believe that people could have valid reasons not to like newer things. I know personally I prefer what I think sounds best, regardless of when it was issued. Go read some of what I've written about the Rolling Stones Decca/London catalog if you don't believe me (quick summary: there have been 4 major releases of the material on CD, and each release has both problems and highlights).

    Not to mention, what do the 1987 CDs have to do with "1962-era mono record players and AM radios"?
     
    DrBeatle likes this.
  5. profholt82

    profholt82 Resident Blowhard

    Location:
    West Michigan
    If someone who dumped them is nostalgic to own them again, they can be bought for pennies on the dollar. They have long been going for <$5, even before the 09 remasters.
     
  6. LitHum05

    LitHum05 El Disco es Cultura

    Location:
    Virginia
    No, because that's television. But I'm not that weird on this. There is a debate on this, particularly as it pertains to pre-2000s cinema that was originally made and screened a certain way.
     
  7. Thwacko

    Thwacko Forum Resident

    Location:
    Peacham, Vermont
    I have the '87 Rubber Soul and Revolver because I didn't think the 2009s made a noticeable improvement. I have the '87 Hard Days Night and Help neither of which sounds great, but I didn't think the 2009s sounded any better. I haven't heard the mono versions of those two, so my opinion may change. On the other hand, the 2009 Beatles for Sale, White Album, and Abbey Road sound fantastic and are a huge improvement over the 1987s. As always, YMMV.
     
  8. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    The White Album and Abbey Road don't sound right to my ears. MMDV.
     
  9. schnitzerphilip

    schnitzerphilip "Modern Dad" Unlocked Award

    Location:
    NJ USA
    Perhaps I'm using the word "technology" improperly and it's causing confusion. I'm talking about the technology of the playback medium.

    What I mean to say is that the effort EMI put into the 60's originals (for mono vinyl and 2" AM radios), then the 87 remasters (for 70's stereo systems replacing turntables and cassette decks with CD players) was based on the technology of the playback medium of the day. No need to make terrific stereo mixes in '65 because very few people had stereophonic sound systems. No need to go deep in the mix to unearth vocal nuances and missing instrumentation on the 87's because the newfangled CD was about a skip-free experience and track-jumping convenience.

    But by the time they got to the 09's, the playback medium was now about vast digital libraries on mobile devices, automotive systems, in-home 5.1 surround sound, and premium headphones. The time had come to go deep and bring out all the instruments and vocals and effects buried in the old AM radio and CD mixes and make up for all those '87 oversights and rush jobs with the first four LP's lacking stereo and such. We know this to be true because that's what they did. You can hear things on the 09's that you couldn't on the 60's or the 87's. Piano's you never heard before. Vocals you never heard before. A raspy saxophone on Rubber Soul that had more bite. A crystal-clear tamboura on Revolver that had more presence. Abbey Road getting a throaty bass guitar all over Side B.

    These are some of my experiences listening exclusively off of an iOS device in my car and in my headphones. I don't have a "home stereo" anymore, haven't since 2004.
     
  10. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    Throaty?!?
    "Bloated" is a more appropriate term.
     
    Dave likes this.
  11. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    You're conflating recording/mixing and mastering. The recordings were made based on the aesthetic of the day, which was to sound punchy and exciting. But the mastering process has simply been one to translate that sound onto a physical (or today, virtual) medium. The 1987 CD were specifically mastered for "70's stereo systems"? According to who? What exactly would that even mean?

    All those things you think you hear on the 2009 CDs are present on the 1987 CDs and the old LPs. Those pianos and vocals? You've heard them before.
     
  12. Lightworker

    Lightworker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Deep Texas
    I kept the 1987 Abbey Road, Let It Be and White Album. Everything else "went
    the way of the dodo".
     
  13. schnitzerphilip

    schnitzerphilip "Modern Dad" Unlocked Award

    Location:
    NJ USA
    I wasn't trying to criticize you personally, I apologize if you took it that way. I was generalizing about people (I know many of them) who have these $10,000 stereo systems that they've painstakingly built since 1975 who, in order to justify the expense and the space they take up, create a scenario where vinyl is better than digital and holding onto older technology is the proper way to go.

    What I say to them, and what I've said here, is that if you hold onto old equipment then, yes, perhaps the older mixes designed for the older equipment is a smart move. But for those of us who have advanced past that and embraced today's modern technology, the newer mixes just simply sound better on our mobile devices, our headphones, our Bluetooth speakers, etc. Note, by the way, that the 87's are actual "CD's" meant for CD players. The 09's were designed to be ripped to MP3 and AAC. You need to put these releases in the context of the moment. One set catered to the CD player revolution, the other the iPod revolution.

    So perhaps the answer to the question is "both". Both the 87's and the 09's need to exist because they each suit the individual playback mediums they were originally optimized for. Same for the 60's mixes of course. If you have 60's equipment, get vintage vinyl. If you have 70's equipment and a big honking home theater, get the 87 CDs. If you have modern portable needs, get the 09's. Cool?
     
  14. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    The 2009 CDs were not remixed. The same mixes were used in 1987 and 2009 (with the note that some material was only available in mono *or* stereo in 1987, while in 2009 both sets of mixes were issued).

    As I consider the entire premise wrong, no, not cool.
     
    audiomixer likes this.
  15. schnitzerphilip

    schnitzerphilip "Modern Dad" Unlocked Award

    Location:
    NJ USA
    Grab your Bass knob. Turn counter-clockwise two clicks. Problem solved.

    The 09's were optimized for digital libraries on portable devices through headphones. The 87's were optimized for analog stereo rack systems through big wooden speakers. Pick the set of discs based on your playback technology. The 09's were not designed for rack system people. They were designed to be ripped by Napster people.

    The context of the time period these sets were created in is what's missing in these discussions. Just because the 09's were delivered on shiny silver discs that looked like CD's doesn't mean they were intended for CD players. It's what we ripped back in the day. I, like millions of others, played those 09 CD's exactly 1 time and it was in a drawer in our computers as we imported them into iTunes.
     
  16. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    What are you basing any of that on?
     
    audiomixer likes this.
  17. mrgroove01

    mrgroove01 Still looking through bent-backed tulips

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I have kept my complete set of original '80's bought Beatles CD's. I almost never listen to them but still have a nostalgic attachment as I vividly remember purchasing them on their release dates when I was a teen. One day I'll do a comp with my '09 box set, also purchased upon release.
     
  18. Bingo Bongo

    Bingo Bongo Music gives me Eargasms

    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    I gave my 1987 CDs to a nephew and never looked back, but I still have them in my iTunes, and still prefer the '09's. (my go-to Beatles).

    I almost re-bought them last year which included the Collectible Bread Box . Kinda glad it fell through, s again, they would just be sitting there collecting dust.
     
    Detroit Rock Citizen likes this.
  19. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    I agree with lukpac here. I don't even know where to start with this statement.
    And to state that "those of us who have advanced past"...well, I'm dumbfounded. I can guarantee you, sir, that my home system, of more than 20+ years old, beats the living crap out of any mobile device, headphone, or Bluetooth speaker. Plan your next vacation to visit a high end audio show. The truth will be unmistakably apparent and present...
     
    Dave likes this.
  20. bob60

    bob60 Forum Resident

    Location:
    London UK
    What did people do with the 'bread bins' I wonder?
     
  21. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    Bass knob?!? My home system doesn't require a "bass knob". :laughup:
     
    pantofis and Dave like this.
  22. No . . . because I never thought they sounded very good . . . at all. Was really disappointed when I first heard them after growing up hearing some of my parents' Beatles albums on vinyl. The difference was staggering. The 2009s are much closer to the sound I remember.
     
    Stencil and bherbert like this.
  23. rjp

    rjp Senior Member

    Location:
    Ohio
    kept the old CD's in the new digipaks, put the new CD's in the old jewel cases.

    don't regret for even 1 second selling the old vinyl, it was old and very well played, if you know what i mean
     
  24. schnitzerphilip

    schnitzerphilip "Modern Dad" Unlocked Award

    Location:
    NJ USA
    I don't know. Logic? Record companies are in the business of selling records. Records that sound great based on what their listeners are listening to them on and what their retailers are selling them for.

    Radio......Mono.....Stereo......Quadraphonic......Vinyl......8-Track......Cassette........CD........MP3......Game Consoles.....Streaming.

    At each major change in playback technology came a major change in release technology. Moved from radio to turntables? The long-player was born. Jumped from turntables to Walkmen? The Cassingle was born. Morphed from cassette players to CD players, from CD players to iPod's, from iPod's to LTE iPhones.....each change in playback technology required a change at the record company to deliver an optimized listening experience for each.

    The key word being "optimized" because in each instance one could take the older recording and transfer it to the newer playback medium at no cost. Once things went digital, they had to give us a sound quality enhancement to get us to make the purchase. So they did.
     
  25. JamesRR

    JamesRR Trashcan Dream

    Location:
    NYC
    I have everything from Rubber Soul through Let it Be as the original 80s CDs. I then filled out my collection back to Please, Please Me with the newer remasters years later.
    So it's a hybrid collection - and I never really gave any thought to updating the 80s versions. They sound fine to me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine