@slane Could you explain the mastering process for the US Albums Box? Were the albums EQd slightly different from the 2009 remasters? The tracks sound a bit more compressed, almost to achieve a more uniformed sound. Is that correct?
I don't have the interview with Greg Calbi handy, but AFAIK they started with the 2009 masters and re-recorded those via analog. I'm not sure if any perceived EQ changes were intentional or just a by-product of that process (I tend to think the latter - I haven't heard anything very different EQ-wise). I think the 2009 transfers they worked from must have been the unlimited versions as some tracks have less limiting than the 2009 versions. The stereo Got To Get You Into My Life is the most extreme example I've come across - the 2014 has an extra 1.5dB of peaks that were shaved off the 2009. But most tracks have more limiting (including all of the mono tracks, which had no limiting at all on the 2009's). Also, some of the channel balances on stereo tracks is slightly different on the 2014's (I remember Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby being one example, where the right channel is relatively louder than the 2009). The analog conversion process is also presumably why the 2014's don't stay in exact digital sync with the 2009's.
Thanks! A few more questions, if I may. Why did they re-record to analog? Also, why more limiting? What do you think of the overall SQ of the box? Thanks again!
I think Calbi mentioned that he felt the 2009 masters were a bit too 'clean' (maybe in comparison to the US mixes that were to be slotted in?), so they copied them via analog (not to tape or anything, just analog out and recorded back to digital). The limiting is not that much different to the 2009 stereos (usually just a bit more), though the monos had to be limited just to be around the same level as the stereos. Overall SQ is fine for me. The stereo albums have their fair share of problems (a few unique mixes missing, use of 1987 remixes, maybe a bit too different to the original albums for some fans, etc). However, I feel the 2014 mono versions are the definitive versions of these albums (all the unique mixes, better overall SQ than the originals, and only folddowns getting replaced with true mono - a good thing IMO).
I agree with you on the 2014 mono versions -- but are you including the mono tracks from the Japanese box in your opinion or just the US box set?
For the 2009 remasters, I understand they wanted to use analog equipment for the equalization. Possibly the same procedure was used for the 2014 US remasters. From Remastering The Beatles | :
Could be, but I don't discern any obvious EQ changes, only very minor differences that I think is likely just a by-product of the D>A>D process.
I'm thinking they would have used the D>A>D process to maintain consistency within the project, as well as with the 2009 remasters. Even if there were tracks that needed no EQ, running everything through the old desk was part of their established processing chain.
I agree even from a non audiophile perspective. The mono on the 2014 US albums sound great and replacing fold downs with real mono isn't a historical disservice as with the stereo, were certain reverb and and duophonic tracks created a unique ambience. I'm sure had the mono and stereo versions from 2014 been released separately only the stereo would have been slammed.
I cannot stand the UK mono Thank You Girl. I grew up with the fold down that has the extra harmonica fills. That alone ruins the 2o14 Beatles Second Album for me.
I know I will take crap for this, but the US Second Album is very special to me. It sounds like a loud, sweaty rock band playing in a night club. The UK mixes are too clean and vanilla....the Brian Epstien version of The Beatles.
Some of you guys romanticize the Capitol albums too much (probably out of nostalgia). It's the same recordings, just with added compression and reverb. No difference in performance, no rawness or vanilla: it's the same music with better or worse fidelity.
“Roll Over Beethoven” just sounds wrong in that dry, wide, UK stereo mix to my ears. It doesn’t belong on “Second Album”. It’s robbed of all its power. The Dexterized version sounds “right” to me in that context.
It's still a different listening experience though. On the earlier albums the track orders are also different. This is how North America heard these albums for 25 years unless you forked out for UK imports back then. The UK versions didn't become the default until 1987 when the CD's came out. It's not just nostalgia -- it's history. To make matters even more confusing, here in Canada the first three albums on Capitol of Canada (no Vee Jay album here) were also different, with unique covers, album titles and track listings although the mixes were faithful to the British mono versions.
Personally, I think the stereo versions of Meet The Beatles and Second Album sound like garbage, but it is the way people got used to hearing that music in this country, particularly in the 70's. I know it sounds odd, but it is absolutely the case. For subsequent albums, I think the sound differences are overstated on like tracks (the UK masters weren't that different), but those two albums did sound unique.
To me, it's the same as if an album was released with distinctive reverb or effects added, and then for the "2017 Deluxe" they removed all the effects to improve the quality and make it "clean". Surely you can understand how that would annoy people? It's not a matter of sound quality, but authenticity.
You don't understand what I'm saying. I understand and respect that some people grew up with these albums and love them with all their pecularities. I'm just saying that sometimes you idealize them too much, like saying the original is "vanilla" as opposed to the Capitol record, when it's the same recording just with added processing. I understand you prefer those songs with the processing, but romanticizing it like that seems a little too much.
Or like saying that the UK Roll Over Beethoven is "robbed" of its power... Come on, guys. You can prefer the dexterized version, but the original is the UK. It's not robbed of anything, because it's the US version that adds anything that wasn't there.
Why? I'm just comparing the two versions, from the point of view of someone who lived it. I'm not being hyperbolic in the slightest. I have no problem with the UK versions, really.
That’s the point. The added processing is what makes it less “vanilla”. Do you also think people idealize buffalo wings too much, because after all they’re the same bird, just unprocessed nuggets with bones and added spices?
I understand, I didn't mean to offend you, it just seemed to me that you were watching the Capitol album through a romanticized glass with the vanilla comment and all. I may be wrong.
Ok, but you should be aware that those effects were added to the authentic version, which is the UK track, right? Anyway, as I said, I'm aware some of you grew up with the dexterized versions, I'm not discussing their historical significance. What I was saying is that some people seem to idealize those versions. One poster even said that the UK version of Roll Over Beethoven was "robbed of its power"... when that is the original version. Any power the song has, it's in the recording (whether one thinks it works better with additives or not).
