Why do Beatles CD's have such low fidelity?

Improperly mastered Beatles SOLO CD's.

 

The way I understand it is that all Beatles albums available on CD (not boots) are sourced from the NRed analog masterings that were created in the '80s prior to the complete catalog availabilty and the only one to escape this fate was the Japanese 1st pressing of Abbey Road catalog #CP35-3016 which was sourced from a second generation master tape IIRC, but quickly recalled/replaced with a NRed version in the first few months after its release. You can not create good sound from garbage. Trash in, trash out. Yes the CD's suck.

 

Well for many people, echo is reverb. Reverb is basically a series of echos.

 

Yes, I think you guys are talking about the same thing. Many people use the term echo instead of reverb, and vice versa.

 

No noise reduction on the 1987/88 CD's, except for Abbey Road and some analog gating on The Beatles (aka "The White Album").

 

It was hearing Beatles needle drops and other boots in '94-'95 that started me back to vinyl. It caused a complete paradigm shift in my thinking. I've never looked back...

 

Besides the radio, the only medium I have ever heard The Beatles is CD. So I guess I don't know what I'm missing. But the Beatles should get their catalog to sound as good as the Dylan and Stones recent reissues.

 

You forgot the groups who want the mono mixes and the groups who want the US LPs in stereo and one who want them in mono! Then you have grou8ps who want the US versions both in stereo and mono, and the groups who want the UK versions in stereo and mono. Then you have groups who want the mono singles. Then you have the peopkle who want all alternative mixes...whew!
There's just no end to it.

 

Average people understand the term "echo" because it is non-technical. Not too many average people say that they sing in the shower because they like the reverberation. They like it because of the ECHO.

 

Just as long as they're remixed in the analog format without any type of noise reduction whatsoever.

Of course, Yoko, Paul, Ringo, Olivia, and Dahni might not let that happen.

 

In other words, you like and are used to that squeaky clean modern digital sound, right?

Me? I like the 60s to sound like the 60s. If something has hiss, so be it. If some small detail is obscured somehow, so be it. As loong as it sounds like it was made back in the 60s, not newly recorded last week in Pro Tools.

 

Nope...

 

No, Grant, my old buddy, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying they don't sound like digital crap to me. Like The Stones' Steel Wheels does or any Lyle Lovett CD(blecchh). I don't hear that fake air shimmer that convolutes almost everything from the 80's on. It sounds like it's from analog to me and we all know that it WAS recorded analog. Some say it's NR'd and some say it isn't. So it seems to me I'm not the only one confused by the whole issue.

I LOVE the sound of the sixties. I HATE digital sounding things. People knew how to record back then. Everyone has forgotten how to make great albums (not only in production but in so many countless other respects). It IS a fact that they were recorded that way and that's more than half the battle. Maybe that's why their CDs still sound good to me because I'm actually listening to the music. Plus weren't they done by the golden ears of George Martin? The man who is responsible for all that great quality to begin with?

I have no problem with hiss either if the music sounds bright and clean. Abbey Road sounds like it's buried under a blanket of hiss. I would love a remaster. But I'm still going to listen to Abbey Road much more than many many other CDs. Because it's so friggin good.

If you want to hear some horribly mastered CDs check out the Queen Hollywood records catalog. Now that is worthy of all the criticism you can unleash. But The Beatles CDs seem to be getting this un-called for elitist-type slamming. I just know that if they were that bad-I'd hear it. No one can actually say what's wrong with them in a comprehensive way without repeating a bunch of forum rhetoric.

So please stop talking down to me and tell me what is the real problem.

 

I wasn't referring to the CD mastering, only the newly created production master tapes done for the CD releases in '87. the CD mastering did leave a lot to be desired as well though.

 

I personally think Ted Jensen would do a FABulous job too, after hearing his great work on the Capitol Albums Vol 1. Considering he was working from tapes many generations removed from the masters they sound absolutely amazing. Better than the vinyl. Being a major vinyl fan I never thought I'd say that!

 

Not sure what you mean by "newly created production master tapes". The only titles remixed were Help and Rubber Soul.

 

Mike, we'd always have something cool to talk about when it comes to THE BEATLES! You outta know that by know!

 

Well, take a gander at the back of "Abbey Road" or "Magical Mystery Tour" and you'll notice that they say Digitally re-mastered 1987 by EMI Records Ltd. The original master-tapes were transfered to digital tape using no-noise and very bad EQ. It sounds like no care whatsoever was taken in preserving the 'strongness' of the sound. These are the "newly created production master tapes" used to make the commercially available CD's.

 

Thanks Jared!

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't have that much of a problem with most the Beatles CDs. But RUBBER SOUL is terrible to me. It's a digital mix and sounds hard and cold.

I agree 100%! They did know how to make albums back then. And, don't forget Geoff Emerick had a lot to do with the sound after RUBBER SOUL.

Maybe the master tapes are hissy. Dosen't bother me.

Here is where I get to say that I don't know what the problem is with the Queen CDs. I have nothing to compare them to. (Markl, we DO know your position on these things. )

But The Beatles CDs seem to be getting this un-called for elitist-type slamming. I just know that if they were that bad-I'd hear it. No one can actually say what's wrong with them in a comprehensive way without repeating a bunch of forum rhetoric.[/QUOTE]
That was my point. With all these complaints, i'm trying to figure out just what it is that people want to hear. There is no consensus. FWIW, All I want are the mono mixes of the Beatles albums out, and HELP and RUBBER SOUL stereo CDs that are NOT remixed.

Easy there! No one is talking down to you. Peace out!

 

What are you talking about?

 

All CDs are digitally mastered.

The standard procedure was to run the original ANALOG tapes through a console, do what they have to do, then transfer the result to a digital storage medium. Back in those days, it was usually a DASH or a videotape format. These days, the transfer usually goes into a DAW for editing after the tapes get tweaked. From there, it goes to any number of formats like CD-R, exabyte, whatever.

For the Beatles CDs, the purpose of the engineers at EMI were to transfer their production master, whatever it may have been, as faithfully as possible. Don't forget that the converters they used back in hose days weren't as good as the ones used today. Problem is, while we have better converters today, the sound that gets shot through them is funged up. Yes, they took a few liberties with ABBEY ROAD...

 

Sorry guys! I just proofread and corrected #72.

 

Don't you mean #24,700

-

Look, people bitch about the Beatles CDs because it's the FU**ING BEATLES!

Objectiviely, the Beatles CDs aren't that bad compared to many first time releases (1990 Beach Boys NoNoise fiasco anyone.....).

Subjectively, anything less than perfect with the Beatles catalogue - the most important catalogue in the history of mankind (fact, not opinion!) - just isn't good enough.

The very thought of Steve being one signature away from getting the Beatles tapes for DCC is enough to make a grown man cry .

However, we need to stop getting the quality issues of the original CDs out of all proportion. I've AB'd the mono Y&B "With The Beatles" LP (Systemdek IIXE) with the EMI/Parlophone CD (Sony SCD-1) and they are not that far apart! The LP gets it for its sheer electricity (that valve cutting sure is sweet!) but the CD is pretty good sounding if you ask me.

The mono "Beatles For Sale" always sounded compressed compared with the stereo. Is the CD really that much worse than the mono LP? (haven't got one to check....).

"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", "The Beatles" and "Yellow Submarine" sound as good as any stock 80s CD transfer to my ears......

OK, "Help!" and "Rubber Soul" are a bad joke - but only because they are poor re-mixes - not because they are mastered particularly badly.

Of course, in the hands of a great engineer like Steve, the Beatles tapes would sound infinitely better than the 1987 EMI CDs. But that is true of any stock release.

Compared with other standard catalogue releases from the 80s I'd say the Beatles CDs were slightly above average if anything. Yes, it's time for new mastering, but lets be more rational about what is already available rather than letting our personal feelings dictate our opinions on this issue shall we?

 

The tracks from "Beatles for Sale" that are feartured on the EP box have a better sound (depth , bass, clarity) not found on the CD.

Any one can tell me what is wrong with the EMI CD of REVOLVER?