2019 Beatles UK Singles boxed set (Was: "Beatles Mystery Boxed Set")*

My original first pressing of the Hey Jude single sounds a heck of a lot better than this new version. There's definitely something screwed up with the EQ and dynamics.
The flip side, "Revolution", has an amazing kick drum sound that the new version lacks. The mono Masters set has a version that sounds like my original.

 

Is it possible that the reason these singles sound so bad is because when the mastering was done in the 60s, Harry was playing to the (then current) lathes strength and weaknesses. And his cutting notes would reflect that.

and when they input those notes onto the modern lathe and cutting gear it sounds off because of the new and improved lathe?

For the 2014 box video I do remember them saying that there was a period of experimentation with the cutting notes to improve the sound. But in the singles video I didn’t hear anything like that

(just a theory)

 

The Beatles

On beatles FB page. Clever marketing

 

I was referring vinyl being the medium for digital files.

Well - I haven't seen specific cutting notes, I've seen a few quotes scattered around press releases that these are AAA. They may very well be, but it's not done well. It sounds like it was a rush job to get it out ASAP for Xmas, and it's evident they didn't give it the effort this music deserves. Sub par sound, sub par (warps, etc.) end products. Not a good look.

 

Which is what I was responding to. For the most part, the box isn't.

 

DR numbers don't lie, they can be misleading to some if not done correctly, but overall they're accurate. Unless they limited the files, extremely. It sounds like they were working off of the Capitol reels for god's sake.

 

DR numbers have zero to do with analog or digital sources.

 

I'm not going to hijack this thread any longer. I've stated my opinion. It has everything to do with the mastering. And if he mixed and mastered these files in the digital realm, then transferred to tape, that can explain a lot.

 

No, it can't. There is zero evidence the box was mastered digitally, regardless of if anyone likes how it sounds or not.

 

Mixed? Nothing was mixed for this. Mastered? Sure, and it may have been done terribly, but not in the digital realm unless that's the only realm certain songs exist.

 

I spent a good half hour of my life calling The Beatles on that phone

 

Yes - thanks for the clarification - mastered only.

 

My set from Udiscover finally arrived last week and I had two concerns when I ordered.
1. Sound quality
2. Warped discs

Well, the sound is better than I hoped for after reading through this thread and checking out some reviews. But unfortunately, 7 of the singles are warped. That's basically 1 in 3 which is disappointing to say the least. And so begins my adventure in acquiring replacement discs...

 

Glad I ordered my box from Amazon.com. I had six warped discs , so I requested a replacement. No questions asked, no fuss. Got my new box in two days and I replaced my warped discs with flat vinyl. Now I just need to take the box to Kohl’s and they’re pack and ship it. I support my local by buying used, but for new items, Amazon and their return procedures is the best.

 

Misinformation time.

 

Just like to put a number to the point, 91.3% of the 2019 set is AAA (4 sides of digital out of 46 total sides)

 

And none of that bothers me. In fact, neither of my two gripes with the set have to do with sound quality.

 

This is absolute insanity.
There is no doubt that these - where possible - were cut in an analogue fashion.
None at all.
But in many ways I wish they were, and that EMI were fibbing, because it proves a very basic point which is that it is almost impossible for anyone to know for sure by listening if a record is mastered AAA or passed through a digital stage.
I also wish people would stop mistaking a mastering choice, with personal preference - people's complaints against the mastering on these singles is all personal preference.
One may not like how these were mastered, but there is absolutely nothing bad, or rushed in the mastering.
And finally on this rant all of these projects are rushed in some way, they all work to a schedule and they could all use an almost infinite amount of time. There will always be mistakes, and the reality of these projects is that I've very rarely seen a reissue project done so badly that anyone but the very smallest percentage of people who buy them complain.
Most people are happy with the general high standards of work and are very forgiving of (or don't notice) the small things that make the projects less than perfect.

 

Ugh, dude. Perhaps you're right about digital, but most who have any means for comparison do not have great things to say about the sound of the set. If I had any sense that the sound was even really good, I would have bought it. But I have many UK originals and they sound fantastic. I'm not looking to downgrade. The sleeves are cool, but I'm not spending $200+ for that.

 

And that's fine.
I'd never buy this to replace the power of a UK original - I doubt anyone would put a 45 out today that would replicate the power of a 1960s UK 45, they would look terrible on a DR calculator (I think anyway, may try and record one later). The complaints we would here if someone mastered anything like a UK Parlophone 'Paperback Writer' would be something to behold!
No one has to buy this, or think it's great - I won't be - but to keep on saying as some people keep on insisting on doing - 'I don't like the sound on this so it can't be AAA' is a very odd affliction, and totally unfounded.
The 7s are a compromise sound which seems to have pissed off audiophiles, but I didn't think audiophiles are really the market for 7 inch singles. I think this thread has kind of proved that.

 

I'm not sure that the association you're saying people are saying is what they're saying. I have heard mediocre sounding analog. And then there are recordings that sound like mediocre digital, which some mean to be thin, harsh, brittle.

 

Something can sound harsh and brittle if it is mastered digitally or analogue.
What people are complaining at is a mastering choice.
That they keep trying to assign this to digital mastering is what I’m railing against here.

 

You know what, there ARE aspects/artifacts to CD mastering that gives a high end a thin, artificial feel. It's not my department, so to speak, but it's the sudden cutoff at a certain frequency, not rolling off. Certain people can explain it better than I can.

 

1) That's debatable.

2) That's not what is being discussed.

 

For 99.9% of people only if it’s done badly.
People aren’t complaining of digital artefacts on this release- they don’t exist - they’re complaining about mastering.
or in fact some people are, but not because there are any.
This argument is only here because of Fremer’s over the top review with wild claims which he’s now apologised for.