Exactly what is wrong with the 1987 Beatles CD's?

I've been following the Beatles remaster threads for some time. I have the entire CD catalogue as it currently stands.

I'm interested to know - what are people's criticisms of the current album CD releases? I think it would be good to summarise all the points in one thread for reference.

 

I'm pretty sure this has been done many times before...

 

I'm sure it has been, too. But I, for one, don't do well with the search engine here. I'd like to see a succinct list of issues with the '87 remasters myself!

 

1. Listen to each CD.
2. Listen to the corresponding LP, preferably the British, first pressing.
3. Compare.
4. Listen to the DVD-A of "Love" to see what CAN be done with this material with modern technology.

 

I think the '87's sound fine. The recordings don't need any better really.

 

Start here:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/

There are quite a few threads on that topic (some say half the forum).


Sorry to be short, but it’s a huge subject with many, many different views on the subject.
The only real consensus is that the first 4-6 CD’s are, at a minimum, less than what they could be.

 

OK - cheers for that. I'll have a scout through.

 

This is oversimplifying, but the first 4 CD's generally have a harsh, kind of forward sound. While this pushes the vocals forward, it's at the expense of warmth and bass. At least IMHO. I honestly didn't realize how bad this was until I heard a boot of MFSL CD of Please Please Me - granted it's in stereo (w-i-d-e. s-t-e-r-e-o), but it's open and warm sounding and puts the official release to shame.

Others will disagree with me, but I think that Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt Pepper just sound kind of lifeless. Not grating or harsh, but just... bleh. Most here will say that Revolver and Pepper sounds pretty good, but I think they could sound much better (as the LOVE DVD showed us).

Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album, Let It Be, and Abbey Road actually sound pretty decent, although the WA is a little uneven, IMHO.

I don't actually have them, but you could get the Capital Albums Vol 1, which I've heard really good things about, if you want an improvement from the standard British issued CD's of the first several releases. Of course they are the American configurations...

 

I think the above post was being a little sarcastic. It is an oft covered subject and by no means is there consensus about the sound on the 1987 CDs.

Overall IIRC Steve has said that the tapes were transferred using the wrong machines which has lead to the CDs sounding less than perfect. Individually there are more specific critiques:

First 4 - mono used instead of stereo, bad transfers
Help/Rubber Soul - remixed version not preferred, bad transfers
Revolver - bad transfer
Sgt Pepper - Let It Be - not bad
EP collection - forum favorite
Singles collection - not bad
Blue/Red sets - mixed, lots good, lots really bad (noise reduction etc).

I'm sure someone will correct my incorrect technical references and anthing else incorrect in my summary.

The Japanese (CP35 - 3016) version of Abbey Road is well regarded as a flat transfer of a tape copy. However, the standard Abbey Road is far from horrible.

 

Summary:

first four -Mono analogue master tapes transfered to the digital domain on a stereo two-track tape machine. Should be redone on proper machine. Beatles For Sale is probably the worst sounding.

Help and Rubber Soul were digitally re-mixed with added echo

Revolver - there are some issues with the alignment on the tapes.

Further thoughts from our host:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=65677&postcount=6

White Album, I believe Steve has said is pretty close to the master.

Pepper is good. MMT good.

All could be improved.


Threads within threads... within threads... lol... happy reading

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=2912259&postcount=2

 

As noted above, there are thousands of posts in this forum related to this topic. While you will not find a universal consensus, a quick recap of the predominant complaints would be:
- Poor mastering of Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale and A Hard Day's Night. While not compressed like a modern remaster, these were performed in an indifferent manner and just don't sound very good, for a variety of reasons.
- Remixes of Help and Rubber Soul: No one seems to like these and would have vastly preferred the original mixes

The opinions seem to vary much more on Revolver and onward. My personal opinion is that they sound like average CD mastering for 1987...not offensive, but far inferior to good Parlophone/Apple LP pressings.

I think the complaints are much more intense in the case of the Beatles than other groups because the mediocre quality of the mastering is inconsistent with the historical importance of the recordings. But there are other important artists whose catalog has been treated far more shabbily on CD (Sinatra comes to mind).

 

Buy any stereo copy of the Beatles for Sale LP. Compare it to the CD. You will hear the difference

 

Well, this is what I think:

First 4: mono, bad transfers, unlistenable.
Help/Rubber soul: new stereo mixes, inferior to the original ones. Bad transfers.
Revolver: right mix, but another bad transfer
Sqt. Pepper: nice sound, great packaging, probably the best of the lot.
Magical mystery tour: poor packaging, sounds OK
The Beatles: nice sound, nice packaging, a good one
Abbey Road: very bad transfer, one of the worst
Let it be: another bad transfer, although better than Abbey Road it really sounds bad
Past masters 1 & 2: good to have them around, although the sound could be better
Red/Blue compilations: overall a slight improvement over both 2000's 1 and the original CDs
1: nearly as good as the Red/Blue ones, but not quite.
Let it be...naked: unnecessary noise reduction, missed opportunity

 

Forgot the Love DVD/CD. It sounds great, probably the best Beatles sound on CD.

 

I'm curious to know, what are your impressions? Do you like them?

 

If you compare the CD to any mono copy of the Beatles For Sale LP, the difference is much smaller.

 

If you can find a copy of Beatlology magazine, Nov./Dec. 2003 there are a couple/3 of articles that might answer all your questions.

http://www.beatlology.com/

The issue contained an interview with Steve Hoffman, along with "A Brief Chat with David Schwartz", founder of Concerned Consumers for the Remastering of Beatles recordings (also a forum member) and an article about the Beatles CD singles and CD EP box sets by Todd Fredericks and Ascott (both forum members). Also, I wrote the cover article, titled "Save The Beatles Catalogue". It's a blow by blow of all the CD releases and their issues up to 2003.

 

for me its the crappy packaging, plus while none sound terrible to me, none sound great either, and you've got the whole mono vs stereo issue.

personally, I'm fine with new MIXES to bring the sound into the new century, I am one of the few here who enjoy Love (not that I want mashups but I think it proves the original tapes are in great shape to make you feel like you're in the room with them. but I also want the chance to buy the original mixes (mono and stereo, even that super wide stereo) mastered properly and some nice packaging - nice liner notes, not just some halfarsed attempt at copying the pictuers in the original, Look at something like, oh, Verve's Ella Fitzgerald sings Cole Porter - you have the original liner notes in addition to a few nice essays on the album to put it in perspective.

I wont die without remasters or anything, but it's a shame other acts have their complete discography reissued repackaged and reevaulated numerous times while the Beatles get the short shrift

 

When were the original albums remastered?
The sound of the 'Love' CD is light years ahead of any beatles CD I've ever heard. Technology has increased significantly since 1987.

Darryl

 

Ah, another dead horse being flogged around here....

Anyone with the vinyl for reference knows just how bad some of the '87 editions are...and of course, that a few of them are actually pretty good. But with missing mono and missing stereo, coupled with a few dubious remixes, a lucrative bootleg underground has been going strong for a long time. THAT should never have happened, because between EMI and Apple Corps, someone should have wised up long before now and straightened out the mess they've made. Why haven't they? Obviously, because the titles still sell enough to keep Apple Corps (if not EMI) happy.

The pair of Capitol Albums box sets were a step in the right direction, if very belated; and here we are in late '08. LOVE was all well and good, but just a tease, a sampler of the possibilities, nothing more. When we will see solid, sensible reissues ala the Monkees, is anybody's guess.

 

Not just the technology, though. By its very nature, a remix album may sound better, but it will of course also sound very different. That LOVE was a stereo/5.1 project offered the opportunity to bring out subtleties not readily apparent to many listeners of the previous CD issues of those songs.

Along the same vein, the Doors did their catalog in stereo and 5.1. While there is extra clarity to the stereo remixes, I question the wisdom of such remixes when the original stereo is what sold millions. The 5.1 remixes made better sense, that was a chance to open up the sound and explore possibilities that were only sampled during the 1971-77 quad period.

 

Here is what I think of the Beatles CD's as compared to other sources:

PPM - good, I like it better than my Y/B mono vinyl

WTB - ok, but not nearly as good as my Y/B which has a nice fat midrange sorely missing from the CD

AHDN - sounds good to me. No mono vinyl to compare but the CD works for me

BFS - icky compared to my Y/B mono

Help! - remix so no other comparisons, but I don't mind it

Rubber Soul - a remix, and the worst sounding CD of the bunch (or tied with BFS)

Revolver - it sounded ok until I landed an EMI 2-box stereo pressing. Now the CD is unlistenable

Pepper - ok. I have an EMI 2-box but the CD is fine enough for me.

MMT - ok. no other legitimate reference points.

White Album - ok except for that glitch at the beginning of Helter Skelter

Yellow Sub - ok enough for me.

Abbey Road - this sounds ok but I find the old Toshiba more pleasant on the ears in the EQ department.

Let It Be - CD is good enough for me

 

Really? You think Abbey Road is one of the worst ones? That's surprising. Most people, myself included, consider it one of the best sounding. It's not harsh or fatiguing and has great bass. I can hear a little distortion (on I Want You and You Never Give Me Your Money), but I'm guessing that exists on the master tapes. I'd be curious to what you're hearing when you play it.