Best Sounding digital Beatles singles comp?

I've done some spot comparisons between my comp and Ebbetts'. Mine are from the CD singles box, corrected for phase; Ebbetts' are needle drops of 45s. Not surprisingly, I prefer mine. The CD singles just come from better sources: the singles master tapes.

Having said that, Ebbetts did a very good job. His needle drops sound smooth and warm (I believe he transfers at 24 bits, which is better than the CD box). Ebbetts' transfers are more mid-rangey than the CD box, which, as I said before, has a more recessed mid-range and a "cold and grainy" sonic signature. Nevertheless, the CD singles are from the first-generation sources, and sound correspondingly (I know I've used this phrase before) clearer and more dynamic.

So there you have it, folks! The CD singles box, imperfect as it is, is our best digital source for the Beatles' singles. It can be improved -- a lot! -- by fixing the out of phase problem, but it still is what it is. Of course, you can always try making your own needle drops, if you think you can do better than Ebbetts. But those of us without the 45s will have to stick with the CD box. There isn't anything better.

BTW, SH has said that some of the '70s recut 45s were also mastered out of phase. He didn't say which, though.

NOTE: I apologize to those who may be offended by my discussing Ebbetts' pirate edition of the Beatles singles. I don't condone pirating, but it must be recognized that if EMI had properly mastered the Beatles' catalog in the first place, there would be no market for Ebbetts and his competitors to exploit. As it is, I had to source PSILY, PPM, and AMW from Ebbetts' needle drop for my own comp, since these singles have never been issued on CD! I realize it's only the Beatles we're talking about here, but still. It's been 18 years since the Beatles were first issued on CD and we're still waiting. Pathetic.

So here is the final (for now, anyway) track list for volume 1 of my comp, indicating sources and, where the source is the CD box, which channel is preferred:

1. Love Me Do (Andy White on drums version) - Beatles 1.
[1a. ALTERNATE. Love Me Do (Ringo on drums version) - Dr. Ebbetts needle drop.]
2. P.S. I Love You - Dr. Ebbetts needle drop.
3. Please Please Me - Dr. Ebbetts needle drop.
4. Ask Me Why - Dr. Ebbetts needle drop.
5. From Me To You - L
6. Thank You Girl - L
7. She Loves You - true mono
8. I'll Get You - true mono
9. I Want to Hold Your Hand - R
10. This Boy - R
11. Can't Buy Me Love - R
12. You Can't Do That - R
13. A Hard Day's Night - L
14. Things We Said Today - L
15. I Feel Fine - L
16. She's A Woman - L
17. Ticket To Ride - R
18. Yes It Is - R
19. Help! - L
20. I'm Down - R
21. We Can Work It Out - L
22. Day Tripper - R
23. Paperback Writer - R
24. Rain - R
25. Yellow Submarine - R
26. Eleanor Rigby - L

If your own listening comparisons lead you to make different choices, post here and let us know!

BTW, as I reported above, if you use this running order, Gracenote will recognize your comp as Dr. Ebbetts' UK Singles Collection, Volume 1. Very cool! Also, I'm using Dr. Ebbetts' nifty Singles Collection artwork for my own comp.

Next: volume 2.

 

Once again, thanks RZangpo2 for your hard work. I am really anxious to make this compilation now!

Still wondering if anyone knows how the 70s pressing of Love Me Do with the green sleeve is. Should I have looked for a 60s pressing? And, no, I can't afford the Ringo version at the moment.

 

True enough, Steve. But it's been fun for Ron and me and we've both learned a lot. Would you be interested in hearing the fruits of our labor?

 

Behave! Anyway, Steve has the recut 45s he prefers, so he doesn't need our comp. It's just the poor shlubs like us who need it.

 

The 70s pressing you refer to uses the correct tape. Steve has said that the 70s recuts sound better than the 60s originals, since less sonic compromises were made in cutting them.

There's also the early-80s picture disc. It also uses the correct tape, but sounds different from the 70s recut. More mid-rangy and warmer. This is the one I have.

 

I realize that of course. But I was only half kidding; it would be interesting to see what Steve thinks of our work, and if he agrees with our choices.

 

This is pretty amazing work by you guys, who'd a thunk it would take so much elbow grease to just get back to the stage the beatles and martin and co left it at, ie original MONO mixes.
You deserve special 'for services rendered in the pursuit of beatle sound' medals

 

I would be interested in your findings for disc two (mono songs).

 

Beatles for Sale is out of phase
With The Beatles is out of Phase
PPM is out of phase

So only AHDN is in phase.

I havent tried every track on every album, but 4 from each. BFS leaves the most sound, instead of silence, does this suggest it's furthest out of phase ?
Might explain the awful sound of this CD.
Anyway we can begin again deciding which channels are best from 3 of the first 4

 

Is "out of phase" a synonym for mono tracks on CDs with differences between the channels?

Because, most mono tracks on Steve's CDs have differences between the channels. (E.g. DCC Pet Sounds, Buddy Holly FTOMT).

 

My understanding is that 2 mono channels when oops'd should cancel each other out.
Hard Days Night tracks do this, others from the Beatles mono releases do not cancel and leave plenty of sound. Cant test the SH titles you mention as I dont have any

 

Not exactly. We are using the term loosely. Strictly speaking, if the difference between the two channels is the cause of degradation of the sound it is called phase problems. If when the two mono channels are summed it causes a swishy sound and a loss of the top end, then at that point (when it is summed to mono) it is called out of phase. Keep in mind that often the "not quite" mono track will sound fine when still in stereo, but may suffer some problems when summed to "real" mono.

 

I understand. But yet, John Simpson posted:

Beatles for Sale is out of phase
With The Beatles is out of Phase
PPM is out of phase

Are the two channels on these CDs really out-of-phase, or are they just different because they were read with a stereo head?

The same for the CD Singles Collection....how was it determined that all those songs are out-of-phase? You would have to do a lot adding and listening to decide if there are phase problems. Or was that done?

 

It's all part of the same thing. These kind of phase phase problems all spring from running a mono tape through a stereo machine. If the azimuth on the tape machine is misaligned then there will be some differences between the two channels. They could be slight, or they could be severe, but they are all defined to have phase problems. However only when the two channels are coverted to mono will the tape (potentially) be out of phase. Out of phase would be defined more strictly here to mean that the tape would have a swishy sound (meaning it would make a swish like sound at every revolution of the magnetic tape - that sound would be reproduced on the CD) and that it would sound a bit dull (no top end). But if the channels are not converted to mono, as in the case the CD singles, they can still exhibit phase problems because of the mono tape being run through a stereo machine.

I don't know specifically what the issue would be with the first 4 Beatles CD's. But if they are not real mono, they are not strictly speaking out of phase. But they may have phase problems.

We discovered the phase problems with the use of a sound editor. We inverted one of the channels and turned the track to mono. If the track was mono to begin with you would hear nothing but silence. If there is quite a bit of difference between the two tracks you would hear it when you play the edited track.

 

But yet, Steve wrote:

So is this to be avoided or okay? Because if it is to be avoided, then I have to ask why many of Steve's CDs were done this way.

 

The short answer to that is it depends. Also on that same quote he said that what he said only refers to the swishy and top end problems not other inconguities in the tape. For example if the tape is degraded in one side, then playing it back in stereo would cause sound degradation AND potentially would have phase problems.

 

a.s. is right -- it's a matter of degree. Certainly the worst offenders among the Beatles' singles improved a lot when this problem was corrected. As to the rest, we were generally able to pick one channel that sounded better than the other, so those were an improvement as well.

Generally, I find the benefits to be a clearing up of the sound and a tightening of the mono image. But I did not do a before/after comparison of each track. If you want to do it, be my guest!

P.S. If the L and R channels of Steve's Buddy Holly and Pet Sounds CDs do not cancel, then the mono tapes were played back over a stereo head for transfer. I cannot speak for Steve, but I assume he had his reasons for doing it this way. In general, mono recordings sound best when played back in mono. On stereo equipment, this means summing the channels (with a Y cable or preamp mono button) or picking one channel (as we've done with the Beatles CD singles).

P.P.S. If the difference between the two channels is just noise, the signal is not OOP. If the cancellation test leaves signal behind, i.e., you can faintly hear the music, they are either OOP, or one channel is louder than the other. One must rely on the ears to tell which. It seems to me that neither is desirable. If the channels are OOP, you get reinforcements and cancellations, hence the audible artifacts we have been discussing. If one channel is louder than the other, the mono image will be pulled off-center.

The thing to remember is that none of these cases (noise differs between channels, channels are OOP, channels differ in volume) are true mono. In other words, in each case the original mono signal has been split into L + R channels that are not identical. I wouldn't think there is ever a good reason to do this, but if Steve did it, he must have had his reasons.

P.P.P.S. It would be interesting to do a threshhold test for the second and third cases I described above (i.e., channels OOP, one channel louder than the other). How small a difference is audible? It would be easier to pick up the differences with headphones.

P.P.P.P.S. Re: terminology. Andreas, you are right. We have been using the term "out of phase" loosely in this thread, to refer to any mono recording where L and R channels are not identical. Strictly speaking, "out of phase" means that there are timing errors between the two channels. Our ears/brain are sensitive to such errors within a few microseconds; about five, I think. Tape heads out of alignment are more than enough to do it!

With all due respect to a.s., the channels do not have to be folded back to mono to be described as "out of phase". If there is a timing error between L and R channels, then they are out of phase with each other. Of course, once folded back to mono (for example, by the engineer's pushing the "mono" button on the tape machine), the reinforcements and cancellations caused by the timing error become encoded in the new mono signal. No repair is then possible.

What a.s. and I noticed is that on those Beatles CD singles that have been described by Steve as "out of phase", the dual tracks had not been folded back to mono. Therefore, the L/R timing error could be corrected simply by eliminating one of the channels. We went on to do this for all the singles tracks that showed differences between L and R channels. Whether all of these were strictly "out of phase", I don't know, because I didn't test them. Andreas, you were very perceptive to pick that up.

Nevertheless, "fixing" the tracks does improve them, whether by a lot (in the case of those tracks that are truly OOP) or a little (the rest of them). I like to hear my mono in mono, thanks!

P.P.P.P.P.S. Here's how to test for OOP. Copy the track, leaving both channels as they are on the CD. Then "correct" the track by eliminating one of the channels. Listen and compare. Pay particular attention to the high frequencies, such as the cymbals. Are they vague and diffuse on the original version? Do they snap into focus on the "corrected" version? If so, the original was OOP.

 

Ron,

It's wonderful you are doing this research. A darn shame though that the Repaired CD Singles Collection still sounds cold and grainy. I know that I would almost certainly wind up sticking with either the CD EP Collection tracks, or needledrops. I just can't enjoy that cold, grainy, digital sound.

I think I'd rather have that warm, tubey sound, even if it means I'm adding a generation to the tape. Certainly whenever I A/B the CD Singles Collection to the CD EP Collection WITHOUT repairing the singles first, I invariably choose the EP.

I'm not sure though. If & when I get my own Repaired CDSC burned, perhaps after I listen to the cleaner, more detailed sound found on it repeatedly I'll enjoy it more. Who knows?

Thanks for a ton of work & sharp thinking
Doug Piero Carey

 

Doug, IME I get used to the "cold, grainy" sound after a few seconds and just listen. To my mind the detail and dynamics, especially in the vocals, more than makes up for it. It shows up on A/B, of course, but when just listening, it's fine. Maybe it's like getting in the pool; it's only cold until you get used to it!

 

I just wanted to follow up with a previous question about the first 4 Beatles CD's which are in mono (or theoretically anyway ). I tested With the Beatles, and it is in fact not mono. In fact I would describe the phase problem that I heard as worst than the Beatles CD's. This is interesting to me, because the general consensus is that the first four albums were either folded down or one of the two channels was picked. Clearly neither is the case. I did not hear any swishyness or loss of top end when I pressed the mono button, though.

 

BFS leaves a huge amount of sound when oops'd. Not sure if its out of phase or one channel louder than the other. When I get time ( haha) I'd like to see if BFS can be improved by selecting one channel

 

Score!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4729925195

Single Comp, here I come.

 

Very nice score Keith . This thread has been most interesting but I have some questions that I feel need to be asked. This is for those of you using sound editors on your computers to extract the best channel, then pasting it back to present a true mono signal. Do you perform your critical listening using your computer monitors...or is your computer hooked up to your main stereo system? I ask because I can easily imagine the sound being enhanced on your comp system, but perhaps the differences on a quality home or studio system may be less significant??? In no way am I putting anyone's comp/stereo system down...it just seems that these noticable differences in sound quality is a bit over-the-top, except on the tracks Steve mentioned earlier.

It's been an established fact that a few of the early singles from the boxset were mastered improperly, but I've never heard or read before that there were phase issues with the first 4 official Cd's in their entirety. Although the sound quality is relatively bad on these Cd's there is no "swishy" sound noticable. Using testing equipment and my own ears, I can't determine or hear that one signal is noticably louder than the other either.

Is it a fact that when using the OOP method with a sound editor that ANY signal remaining is out of phase? There's no other explanation for hearing a musical signal, no matter how loudly or faintly? Such as the original recording head was itself slightly out-of-alignment??? If performed with different sound editing software is the problem more or less noticable, or is it exactly the same? Believe me, I'm all for improving the sound of the Beatles canon, but I'd be very skeptical if this method works for every track on the First 4. I'm still amazed that John Barrett's reference cassette sounds better than the corresponding released tracks by EMI...now how is THAT possible

Lastly, has anyone performed these tests on the Capitol Boxset? While many of the mono tracks are...and were back in 1964, fold-downs...many are true mono. I know many of you have negative opinions on this set, but I never read about phase issues. Any takers???Cheers, Ron

 

It's possible because Mr. Barrett had access to the original masters, where the CD's were mastered from tapes 2-3 generations (more?) down from the masters.

Derek