Best Sounding Beatles CDs

But such a transformation would be easily and objectively measurable, even if the "re-EQ" is minimal! For one thing, the two CD masterings would not stay in synch anymore.

 

Speaking of synch...."Hey Bulldog" syncs perfectly with remix up until it ends cause the remix fades out longer!...So MMT still weird for me. Sorry off topic.

 

The Hey Bulldog remix does not sync with the original mix. Also, Hey Bulldog is not on MMT. I know you mean well but you really are a fountain of misinformation.

 

Sorry mate. The Toshiba Abbey Road was NOT taken from the masters. It was done from a safety copy.
Do a search here, there's plenty of info available.

 

I remember reading somewhere that John & George picked the track-listing for 62-70. Paul couldn't be bothered and Ringo not interested.
I think the best sounding are The Blue Box by Dr. E.

 

In my opinion, it's much better EQ. A lot more pleasant to listen to than the 1987 CD. I wouldn't pay $100 for it though...

 

You sir are completely wrong..if I said it synched it is because I did it! Will post it asap!!!!PS. I know MMT..just brought forth that it was different and it was...not sating it was on this or that release!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PS..And if MMT did not sync with other MMTs due to tape speed problems a newer remix*b should not come close..BUT IT DID...PERFECTLY!!!!!!! * Bulldog with Bulldog.

 

REALLY?
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=4F4025A41DE4EB43

 

That hurt...and totally uncalled for. And totally or 99% false!

 

Well or flat mastered safety copy better than THE Master mastering in this case. * Or whatever copy..don't really give a hoot*. LOL..not for you John Cantrell but for the "experts"..*cause it sounds great!

 

Easy there, big fella

Actually that's true in many cases and I agree completely. I had just remarked the same in the Yes Album thread.
The concept is also part of our gracious host's credo:

"What good are the masters if you screw 'em up with poor EQ choices."

Or words to that effect, I'm not able to quote Steve verbatim on this.

Anyway, makes sense to me.

 

I'm talking about digital sync. It's impossible for 2 completely different mixes done 30 years apart to be digitally identical.

 

Howdy,

just to pick up on the topic of digitally identical CDs sounding different there is a body of anecdotal evidence (as all comments about 'sound quality' are largely anecdotal) that the optical reading part of CD play degrades something, ie. I've read comments from musicians who say CDs don't sound as good as the digital tape sent to the pressing plant, also some claim music is better read directly from hard drive and, thirdly, that burning a CD-R is better than the orginal CD (see link).

http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepaper/Black_CDsII.pdf

So, it may be possible that CDs pressed from the same PCM master in two different plants can sound different.

Apologies if this has been discussed before on this forum (highly likely I expect).

Regards
13th Duke of Wymbourne

 

Yep this has been brought and makes sense . Luke, Barry and a lot of others have talked about these things.

 

Obviously I am NOT and was trying to make the point of people defending MMT (difference in sync as in on the beat) and it was sort of brushed off by people that the tape recorder/player could have slight speed variations as normal....and then for me it is WOW That "Hey Bulldog" remix syncs perfectly after being taken supposedly from multitrack and all the differences would be easier to accept..IF they happened..but they did NOT and both versions sync perfectly until one fades out before the other by a few seconds. Sincerely,Mr. Misinformation. P.S. Also on my original post I said sorry for off topic.(therefore hard to confuse I ran on a little tangent having nothing to do with discussion at hand or "digital sync"...

 

I think you don't quite understand that if it's not in digital sync, then it's not in sync. It might sound similar but it won't cancel out.

 

According to author Bruce Spizer the man responsible for the Red & Blue track selection was Allan Steckler of Apple Records.

 

Did you listen to the file? Its in sync. I never said digital sync. But the 2 files were place in multitrack and played at same time and one recording is heard..one voice no echo...does it sound like 2 recordings going on? Not to me it doesn't. Much more precise than 2 analog machines going together. anyways..thats not what bothered me....Also whats kool about is/are the differences of each would add to it..like a new mix...

 

I don't understand the point of syncing up 2 different mixes of a track at all. What are you trying to prove by syncing the 1968 and 1999 Hey Bulldog mixes I also don't understand what you mean when you say the 2 mixes are "in sync", they don't sound that way to me..

 

If I posted that as a tweak you or no one would have guessed it was 2 recordings on multitrack going on at same time in sync..and they are as if one or more tracks on a multitrack ready for mixdown etc...there was no point until you said that they did not sync...if you do not understand reread..very clear what I wrote as a side bar off topic type post comparing with the other thread when confronted because I said MMT was different from Blue and EP versions cause they did not sync with MMT...

 

Mono foldown original mix on left channel and mono foldown remix on right channel... they sync and difference of course is dynamics and obviously mixes. But sync in time. http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=0848991454F46336

 

I think that's what we mean about "misinformation". When people here say "in sync" they really mean "in sync"...as in digital sync.

Yours isn't "in sync". It's just two similar recordings put next to each other that sound the same. They don't cancel out: they're not in sync.

 

Sorry ..do not understand you guys. This is my final try to express my thoughts on this. This time in complete mono..a foldown of previous file I posted. Please,please listen first before you post your opinion..if you have any. I hear
ONE song. Not two going on at the same time. Do you? http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=4A21CD5248274C0B

 

Hi Randy. The last time I compared it sounded like there was a "hole" in the center of the Canada "LIB" disc (this is the best way I can describe it). It didn't have this on the Japan version. It had to do with the stereo imaging as well as what Gary menioned - for me the stereo image also plays a part in differences I hear between pressings (I was ready to throw the P33L "Beggars Banquet" out the door until I adjusted my system).

FYI - The CP32 second run CDs (red obi with the 3,008 Yen price point) are commmon as dirt. The first run with the 3,200 Yen obi strips are harder to find (both the same mastering) - I don't know how long these were available before CD prices in the country were lowered and the catalogues was reprinted and repressed to reflect the new pricing. And there are plenty of "30th Anniversary" edition discs with the black obi which were released in '92 (still same mastering) - not to be confused with the 30th Anniversary "White Album" form the late ninties - this series included the entire catalogue. There is also a CP25 box set with the same mastering (lower price per disc as you bought them all together). And the series later became TOCP (there is also a TOCP box set) and these all use the same mastering.

The Japanese like their Beatles more than SH.tv members.