Why do Beatles CD's have such low fidelity?

The Beatles CD's are a travesty.....As for Steve's comments about the recording quality, it is true that the earliest Beatles recordings are not of the highest fidelity, but listening to the Anthology recordings shows that they did get much much better as they progressed...too bad the commercially released discs do not reflect this.


Evan

 

Exactly right: blame that nebulous entity "Apple Corps".....although the way EMI masters things, we would likely have been here bemoaning the 2nd time around anyway.....

As the Tonmeister said, save your Lp's. And singles, and....

 

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

One groups wants CDs that sound like the LPs.
Another group wants CDs that sound like the UK master tapes.
Another group wants SACDs or DVD-As that sound like the UK master tapes.
Another groups wants LP reissues.
Another group wants remasters on any medium, but only if mastered by Steve.
Another group wants stereo remixes.
Another group wants surround mixes.
Another group wants alternate mixes and outtakes instead of the regular albums.

The only consensus seems to be that all groups are unhappy with the status quo.

 

I just want a Beatles CD that, shocker, SOUNDS GOOD. Is that too much to ask?



Evan

 

What we heard from the original vinyl depended very much on what we played it on. Someone playing it on a state of the art system would have heard something very different to someone playing it on a cheap record player, and no doubt different again to someone playing the reel to reel versions. Did any of them hear anything sounding like the master tapes?

I would like to see each album come out on double SACDs (quadruple for the White album), original stereo and mono versions on one disc, and remixed (à la Yellow Submarine Songtrack) on the other - stereo for PPM & WTB, and both multi-channel (however rudimentary) and stereo for the remainder. No clipping, no compression, no noise reduction. However, equalisation is another matter. It has to be sympathetic to both the era and the music.

 

A lot of this could be accomplished in one fell swoop. Why not issue hybrid multi-channel SACDs that sound like the U.K. master tapes? Steve may not be able to master them, but someone else who is capable could.

At the same time, release surround/stereo DVD-Audio discs with good video content. (Just no Dual Discs!)

Release LPs at the same time as the hi-rez digital discs.

And this is the Beatles. Care should be applied in the mastering. Whoever is contracted for the work should take his time. For the SACDs, master analog to DSD. For the DVD-Audio discs, master analog to hi-rez PCM (24/96 or 24/192). For the CD layers on the hybrid SACDs, either downconvert the hi-rez PCM masters to 16/44.1 or convert the DSD masters to 16/44.1. (Would there be an advantage to mastering from analog directly to 16/44.1?) For the LPs, stay in the analog domain the whole way.

O.K., that's it. I'm ready for criticism!

 

Does anyone know the identities of the members of the Beatles Committee? And what are the group dynamics among the members?

I have never posted on a Beatles thread here before because I know I'm no expert. But I remember the magic of the sound of 45 rpm Beatles singles being played on jukeboxes and at junior high dances, and I don't understand why, 40 years later, I am denied commercial access to that magic.

I have introduced a lot of music to my children who, surprisingly, have responded positively to some of their old man's music. But none of them like the Beatles and who can blame them when most of their cds sound like crap.

 

There are only 3 mastering engineers who could possibly do the Beatles catalog justice IMO. Steve, Stan Ricker, and Doug Sax as long as he lays off the added echo. These guys are the only engineers who seem to be able to capture the breath of life with any sort of consistency. There are other engineers who are good, but do not have the kind of experience these 3 do that is a necessity for this catalog.

Master tape sourced, both mono and stereo, no digital futzing, no NR and fully tube-mastered. Only gentle analog eq. massaging allowed to achieve the best results. SACD and surround are distant secondary items, but would be cool all the same.

I'm not too demanding.

 

If we had properly mastered Beatles CDs, what would we talk about here?

 

I am not up on all the mastering engineers, but it may not be fair to compartmentalize them as you have. Some of the engineers working for the majors may not always be given the freedom to master "with their heart." We've all read about the suits who want their music to be loud because they believe that everyone wants their music that way. Anyway, some mastering engineers may be required to master loud, use no-noise, etc., and they do it against their better judgment because they need to eat. Just a thought.

Also, one name you did not mention is Vic Anesini. He gets high marks around here.

And here's a dumb question. Is Dennis Drake still around? His masterings on West German Polydor discs get high praise.

 

Hmmm...good point. Well, I guess we would talk about how good they were. I'd like to have that opporunity.

 

Ironically, there is a guy on eBay right now offering used West German CD pressings of Help!, Beatles For Sale, and Please Please Me with longboxes, each with an opening bid of $74.95 and a $99.99 Buy It Now (three separate auctions). Somehow I don't think he will sell them.

 

Somehow I know he will, eventually, if they're sealed longboxes....

 

Keith, yes Dennis definitely should have been included with the others, but what has he done that's impressed these last 10-15 years?

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I do not believe Vic is as good as the majority believes as I have yet to be impressed by anything he's done. I understand and know why they master the way they do to feed themselves, but let me ask you this Keith. If you owned a Rolls Royce and had to have mechanical repairs done who would you trust. A Rolls Royce specialized mechanic or a guy who works on Volkswagens all day long? I know who I'd pick.

 

I don't know what's wrong with my hearing. I've been enjoying The Beatles CDs for years- much more consistently than any other CDs. I think they sound fine and beat the heck out of anything new that comes out today. Everything too perfect is just boring to me. Too me it's like the difference between looking at a mannequin or a real woman.
And yet I somehow produce recordings that get praise on production- go figure.

Okay. Okay. Abbey Road is a bit hiss-y.

 

Hey, some people like digitally-sourced material which is fine if there is no analog master, but this certainly is not the case here Mark. I understand your too perfect reasoning, but I've never encountered that with any properly mastered analog sourced material, only digital.

 

Ed, as I said, they are used CDs with the longboxes.

 

Dave, all I was trying to say was that with the proper instructions, there may be a lot of guys out there who could do the Beatles catalog justice. If Capitol/EMI were to take the attitude that they wanted the new discs to sound like the U.K. master tapes and with no futzing applied, there might be a lot of guys who could do it well. I definitely agree that there are engineers out there with a bad track record, but I do not know the degree of freedom that these engineers have been afforded.

 

Keith, all I'm saying is that with a one-shot deal like The Beatles catalog I would want someone already proven and not someone who speculatively "might" be able to do a good job. The Volkswagen mechanic "might" be able to figure it out, but that's not appropriate when I'm paying this guy $100.00 per hour to know definitely and ultimately it will cost more in one way or another if he has to learn because his former restraints have been removed with no guarantee of results.

 

Can you give an example of where Doug Sax added echo I doubt he would add "echo" to anything...

 

Analogue Productions SACD's, Gold CD's and LP's of Sonny Rollins Way Out West, Art Pepper, etc....

 

I don't quite understand, and please excuse my ignorance about digital techniques at EMI, but isn't EVERYTHING that the Beatles recorded originally analog? Doesn't that make the source all analog-sourced and not digitally-sourced? When they did the original transfers, did they screw that up? I'm just asking. BTW I've never heard a DDD CD that sounded pleasing to my ears, if this is the case with The Beatles (and we all know it's not, yes?) then it would be a first.

These discs were also made before the "loudness wars" so heavily lamented in this forum.
Don't get me wrong- I would buy any remix and remaster of The Beatles because I'm such a geekball. I understand the want of better releases. I still don't like the added echo on Dizzy Miss Lizzy. I don't care for the out-of-sync Eleanor Rogby vocals on YS Songtrack. I wish the 3rd and 4th albums were available in a proper stereo mix. And Abbey Road is the only one that sounds like it was the wrong master tape to me.

But I still love Rubber Soul (and I know Steve can't listen to it) more than many of my beloved discs. I loved Sgt Pepper and Goerge Harrison hated it. I just think they (the beatles CDs) are getting verbally abused beyond my understanding. I'm just wondering if this is still a matter of taste or is the consensus pretty much fact? These CDs really suck? And if they do can someone explain in comprehensive way why? and what is the most annoying anamolies or short comings in sound overall?

Remember though- I'm drooling for new remixes as much as anybody. And this Beatles-jones for new ways to hear the same songs over and over again -in different ways- will not be completely filled for me until The Beatles miraculously take form in my living room and perform their whole catalog for me.

 

I doubt any added echo to those titles. Maybe reverb but not echo...

 

We could start to talk about Who's Next perhaps?

 

Not according to Steve.