Regardless of the SPARS codes, mixes, remixes, masterings etc... I'm still a fan of those 80s' (and a bit early 90s') silver-looking CDs. I like them and grab them wherever I find one.
Me too, I love listening to the original stereo mixes the Beatles themselves didn’t intend on releasing. I can’t get enough of not hearing Ringo’s drums because they’re buried on one side of the left or right speaker. I also love the false stereo edit of Rigby. What’s even better besides the hard panning are the missing sound effects on Sgt. Pepper. We were given these original stereo versions on cd with no choice of the proper mono mixes. George Martin himself remixed the albums Help! and Rubber Soul in 1987 because he realized the issues. The issue here is you’re used to awkward mixes as these were the only versions you can pick up. The songs deserve better! You’re doing an injustice settling for the 1987 mixes.
Thanks for bringing this stuff to our attention. I gained huge appreciation for it when I watched the Michael Fremer RUclips video about his 2017 testimony in Quincy Jones' lawsuit against the Michael Jackson estate. It was all about horrible remixes, and Quincy was essentially saying his reputation was damaged by the Jackson estate's decision to remix songs and albums Quincy had produced for MIchael J. With the price of music these days (in whatever format) it's good to have a heads up to avoid getting screwed on sound quality. I've had my share of disappointments with these remix/remaster fiascos. A real butt burner.
I agree as well. As you said, Quincy sued the estate for putting his name on the remixed versions. Jackson's estate like Jimi Hendrix's estate has been doing their best to get out more merchandise, despite it not being better or worse, they are redundant. I went through my MJ cds and found that "Invincible" to be the last great wonderful album, which came out before he passed. He was suing Sony for lack of promotion and they were countersuing for taking to long and spending too much money.. I found the 2008 25th Anniversary release of Thriller to be a waste on money, except for "For All Time". Same with Xscape and the awful THIS IS IT. These were not songs or versions that Michael approved or would have approved. If Sony & his estate were smart they would create 3, maybe 4 albums which are cohesive. He was tying to keep his previous audience while trying to use up to date hit producers to stay current. They should create a CD of classic sounding MJ, a Dance or Disco collection of MJ, & a Hip Hop MJ. His catalogue as currently released is schizophrenic and disjointed. Invincible is clearly overlooked and his currently my favorite Michael Jackson album. There are better ways of keeping his recordings vital than what they are doing. Yet another Best Of, is unnecessary. Steven Pettinga, Indianapolis.
Loudness wars... have been a disaster for so many CDs. It never ceases to amaze me how many record labels are still releasing these super loud discs. As you say, on some you can actually hear the clipping - or at least on a half decent system.
Keep these coming Guido!! The poor people who have bought the latest version and always believe it to be the best, may be offended to know that the past was good- really it was. Giles really should not think he can outdo his father- George was a master! Onya for doing these comparisons as it keeps some reality in the recording industry / market today.
It’s adorable that you listen to the original stereo mixes when they were an after thought. You should be listening to the mono versions if you’re a purist. The Beatles themselves were upset by the hard panning, often bad edits, and missing sound effects on some of the original stereo tracks. Albums like Sgt. Pepper and Revolver were clearly mono recordings the Beatles helped mix themselves. It’s laughable when purists listen to the “original stereo” and criticize the new mixes.
@@girlswanted7 your theory has just one flaw: George Martin has said that up until Revolver, The Beatles WEREN’T always in the Studio for the Mono mixes, and often their suggestions for the recording was often made DURING the recording session, not always the mixing sessions (such as John wanting to have his vocal sounding different on the third verse as opposed to the first two verses).
I'm pretty sure that most of the compression is the CD mastering of the 2022. The new mix sounds pretty good on vinyl. Original stereo mix on vinyl is not great in any case.
Subscribed...Revolver is one of my favorite beatles albums. I have the 1987 cd, can stream the remix, and have a Parlophone album remaster on the way that is well regarded. I'm looking forward to listening to the differences you described and am hoping the NM - album can be my go to when it arrives.
There maybe parts of the 1987 cd that I like more than the 2022 remix, but overall I think I like the remix better. I like giving poor old Ringo a bit more credit than he normally get by hearing those drums. I'm not sure I totally buy-in to the idea of mono being the best (that may have been the Beatles' favorite format), but most stereo Beatle recordings give my a headache while listening on headphones. Good Review, Thank You
I actually bought into the mono thing and sought out the mono box set when I saw the rave reviews. It’s definitely not bad but me personally I just don’t like how mono sounds, so I agree with you about mono. Since I listen to headphones a lot I definitely like these remixes.
I agree about the mono mixes. Often the level balance is better and the stereo panning becomes distracting. Otoh the crash cymbals can cut into everything in the mono mixes harshly at times, too. Ha...to go on a ramble - I really dunno why people feel like Ringo is underrated when he's widely regarded as having excellent song feel, a supremely cool sound and a solid meter. He just isn't the fills and flourishes 'animal' that Moon or Peart were, nor the chops-monster like Baker and Bonham were. He clacks on the rims and fails to find the funkiest pocket sometimes, but hey he's a multi-gazillionaire with tons of friends. Ringo won the life-lottery jackpot any way you slice it!
I finally had time to listen to the new CD, both on (small desktop) speakers and on my HiFi Man 400i headphones/Woo WA7 amp. It's probably worth its admission price for "Elenor Rigby" alone! Paul's voice is warm and very present. He sounds more human. And the way the strings (bolder than the somewhat thin sound of earlier versions) are split to right and left channels frees the different instruments to play off each other in an effect that I find much more emotionally gripping.
Bought the 1987 cd in the 90s, always thought is was thin sounding, the mono vinyl sounds perfect, but the new mix might be better for earphone listening on the train for example (no irritating stereo separation and a bit more soundscape than mono).
Absolutely! I compared the 2009 remaster to the new 2022 remix thru headphones last night and the latter is the clear winner. I bought the 5CD box and am glad i did, even when i’ve never been that heavy into the Fab4. The Sgt. Pepper 6-disc box is also very good, unlike what some people want to make us believe. I have 2,000 CDs and 2,000 LPs. Sometimes one format sounds better than the other.
The 1987/87 cds does sound very thin with hardly no bass at all. And there is a flatness to the overall mastering. On the other hand one or two songs on the new Revolver mix has too much bass.
You sure do love that DISTORTION, which is ENDEMIC to analog. Tape hiss is the recorded sound of the tape crossing the recording head. But that guarantees it's analog, eh? And then there's the distortion added by tube amps. And then distortion added by stylus in groove. But let's all just pretend it's "warmth".
@ModBopBeat Yes: the "warmth" is DISTORTION. But tell us: how are you a "purist" about the "purity" of the sound if you are willing to obscure it behind distortion? "All of the other things going on in analog"? Such as? Tape hiss is the recording of the sound of the tape crossing the recording head. Tape hiss is a "benefit" of analog!? DISTORTING the original recording is a "benefit" to the original recording!? Shouldn't you be learning how to LISTEN instead of bashing advances in technology that remove the distortions?
@ModBopBeat Compression is a staple even DURING recording. Don't EVER claim to be an "audiophile" by both defending distortion and then engaging in reductive distortion by lambasting compression as ONLY responsible for the "loudness wars". And the bashing of digital in favor of analog needs to die as an "issue". But the stupid will cling to it rather than learn how to HEAR the music instead of whining that they non-music artifacts are gone.
@ModBopBeat Oh, god, ANOTHER addicted to meaningless pseudo-intellectual labels: " NEO-Garage Rock". During 1968 the informal debate was over who "invented" "Hard Rock": "The Kinks" or "The Yardbirds". Eventually the label "Hard Rock" was being tossed around more generally -- even though "The Kinks," as example, also recorded BALLADS. Then that became "official" as "Heavy Metal" -- which is nothing more than MARKETING. I saw it happen: after "The Beatles" broke up rock splintered into this and that pseudo-"genre" until, by the 1980s, practically every band was claiming to be its own "genre". It's all hogwash. So-called "garage rock" was not a plan, an intent. They were recordings made with, usually, shitty equipment in less-than-standard recording environments. I was in one of those bands, and believe me, we didn't like rehearsing in a garage, or having shitty guitars and amplifiers.
The MORAL of this story is ANALOG is always a great ingredient, in addition to being a great main course. It makes a good side dish too, for those who listen primarily to cds, but have vinyl playback too. Don't get me wrong, I modify cd players and as the clarity, transparency, purity and openness increase; the sound starts to sound more like analog, and it is really good. But there is an underlying brightness and edge in its heritage, but that seems to lessen as the mods do their thing and improve the sound. The thing perhaps more bothersome in its genetics is glare. If you compare a great reel tape recording vs. the cd, you will see what I mean. If you have an integrated amp with a treble control, you can boost the treble till it's pretty high frequency emphasized with reel to reel without it sounding harsh. Try that with digital. The sound will be unlistenable and full of glare; grain and harshness, which it isn't with analog. So what Guido is really showing is that a dash of analog is good; a dash of digital is not so good. I do enjoy my cds too though. With the best of them, anyone who would pick on sound that good is really nitpicking. I wish all the cds released would be as good as the really exceptional ones.
A biggest consideration than analog Vs digital and what gear they used is the skills and artistic sense of the mixing engineer. Like Geoff Emerick and George Martin were amazing, It's not about analog or digital but their musical taste and how they balance, use effects, etc... It's an art form ✌️
Analog is not always some magical ingredient....I remember the 70s and 80s well, and there was more crappy analog gear in the past than good; _we simply choose to remember and maintain the best stuff of the past, while the chaff is discarded and forgotten._ Good sound is good sound. It's the expertise and experience involved that makes all the difference, not the medium. Early digital masters sounded crappy because hardly anybody knew what they were doing. It also took analog well over decade to sound _any good whatsoever._ The first generation of transistors sounded flat out terrible for hi-fi use.
I don’t understand the hate towards the 1987 digital remasters. I think they are the best way to listen to the Beatles digitally. George was a genius when he decided to remaster Please Please Me and With The Beatles in Mono. Sounds amazing!
Some say the tape head was misaligned, partly because they played back the mono tapes on a stereo machine. Supposedly the sound suffered as a result. I wouldn't know; I never had the 1987 issues of either album, but I do agree with you that mono is the go-to for them. Please Please Me in mono is amazing.
@@FrederikOlsenIt suffers a little bit, mostly in the song “Please Please Me”, and the very end (the last five seconds or so) from “I’ll Be Back”, the last one having a REALLY noticeable high frequency cut. Aside from that, they sound really great, and, most importantly, are completely flat, unchanged transfers from the tapes (except for the remixes of Help! and Rubber Soul), without the overpowered bass and unnecessary edits that the 2009 remasters brought. This really shines in their later albums. Try to listen to the ‘87 remasters of Abbey Road or even The White Album of Let It Be. Nothing will get closer to the original tapes.
I’m not getting the vinyl. I’m just not all that enthusiastic about spending $200 dollars on more yet more vinyl redundancy for changes I’ll be able to hear just fine on CD. That being said I really like the new mixes both mono and stereo of "Revolver" on CD.
I enjoyed this mix, but i don't like the way GM as tried to create a modern treatment of the material (especially on pepper. In some ways this is needed but we don't need compressed sound.
Just a note: ER was the only track for which GM didn't need to use AI, since even the original had separated tracks for voice and strings. So that would have been useless. Apart from tech details, I have to say that listening to this 2022 mix with headphones is a pure joy. So many revelations like, for instance, the second guitar lick in She said, she said, just to mention one. I can accept the mono as superior, but if we are talking about headphones, the 2017-2020s remixes are the way to go.
Just to clarify - what you call 'micro-clipping' is incorrect. Using a Peak Limiter looks exactly like this - and no sound is lost to clipping nor is there distortion introduced. The peaks are brought down to a precise level and the 'floor' is brought it up. So these new tracks are not clipped - but peak limited as the last stage in mastering process.
There is no 1987 mix actually, it's only a digital remaster. The mix was done in 1966. 1987 remaster was pretty much flat transfers, it retains more dynamic from the master tapes than the LP versions (that's the big difference between a CD and a vinyl). 2009 remaster was EQed and compressed a bit. And Giles Martin (or his mastering engineer) is too heavy on compression. Another wasted remix. Shame. AAD or ADD has nothing to do with this. The new mixes were made using hi-resolution digital. The 1987 remasters had 44,1 Khz 16 bit technology.
If you check the thumbnail of the video you will see that I indicated that. For easier comprehension I called it a mix of 1987, but I think this is clear.
The remix sounds like an AI mix heard through some streaming service. The dynamic range is gone.. blown out, sounds sharp, even though the visual representation is a lower 'db' .. it's been pretty much mangled by limiting / compression. Where the heck did the feedback hum go from the amps at the start of the song????? That speaks to my 'AI' point.. they let the computer run without review? Silly stuff here. Why is a guy who makes crappy movies now trying to force feed musical remixes of classic material? He was chosen.. I get it..but why and by whom? I get why this could be appealing to some.. but again that's just the people who listen to streaming services all day and have zero discernment in general. Even though the original Stereo mix seems wonky.. it fills in very nicely overall and represents a clean dynamic range compared to this AI audio production chachkie.
@8:18 - interesting when I view the remix in Audition..the waveform is down -6db across the spectrum. (checked in Audition and RX) .but obviously brick wall limited. So they brick wall limted it and then pushed the overall db down to -6db for a safety net of digital distortion peaks? But when I look at the Elanor rigby digital remix.. it is also brick walled but peaks at 0db.. did your Taxman remix file get dB lowered before you sent it?
Yes of course, as stated in the video the two Taxman tracks were normalized in order to have the same perceived loudness. That makes a fair evaluation. I didn't touch Eleanor Rigby.
Ciao, le versioni SACD, MQA, HQ, SHM-CD sono migliori di AAD?Quale formato scegliere se non c'è AAD. Dove acquistare rock progressivo italiano, ad esempio Le Orme, Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso perché è difficile con queste band italiane.
Salve! AAD è solo un normale CD con registrazione e mix fatto in digital. Dunque mon significa che sarà sicuramente meglio. Io trovo che siano meglio rispetto a quelli più nuovi, anche perchè il mastering è peggiore. Teoricamente I formation elencati (a parte HQ e SHM che hanno materiali migliori) sono superiority.
Interesting video, thank you! My take is that it's your own ears that will tell you which is the best mix version format etc. And I respect choices different from mine. Music is after all an emotive art form. That said I think the Beatles work best in mono, although I enjoy the ping pong stereo of Please please me over speakers! Shame you didn't compare the 2009 mixes which to me sounded mushy against the 1987 CDs. Great work!
Like your channel and agree with most of your comments. Very nice job here. I saw your review of SACD's, and XRCD's and I think remastered/remixed CDs are a better current solution. Most artists/labels are re-releasing prior works. What better way for an artist to keep the revenue stream coming in for old works? And now we have books of the albums to buy as well. I've bought the entire Beatles catalog on vinyl in the 70's, CDs in the 80s, and some 2009 remasters, and 2XXX Deluxe remasters, along with other artists. How many times are we going to pay for the same songs again? Then we get to compare the versions all over again? It gets a little tiring. I guess if you really love the music, it is a labor of love in the end....?
I had always been amazed by the Beatles CDs. Starting with a 4 track machines, their CD releases were very satisfactory. Even as complex as Sgt Peppers was, it was done on a 4 track recorder. As 8 and 16 track recorders came out, artists & producers had and have more leverage to try to achieve perfection. That is a trap. Lindsey Buckingham has a what? A 32 track studio in his home. The greater capability to fix mistakes and add effects or instruments, has made most of his solo recordings and Fleetwood Mac's Tusk, sounds overwrought and fussy. He got to spend too much time thinking about it and you loose spontaneity Further remastering has brought out certain nuance & elements that you couldn't hear before; but does that make them better? It's up to you. The Beatles catalogue is remarkable in that they had 4 tracks for half of their albums. Despite the age of the technology; George Martin coaxed out the max of what they had to work with. They also did not have a lot of time, as they needed two to three albums per year to keep Capitol/EMI running. Now, as an American, I prefer Capitol's Duosonic stereo versions over the dry English recordings. You can still find the two, 4 disc collections for sale here & there. The executive running Capitol in the US during their original releases, was pushing for a better stereo releases, as they were $1 or $1.5 dollars more expensive. There is extreme stereo separation and more echo. It's what we grew up with and why we prefer them more than the European releases. I think Gile's remixing is quite good, but not quite as good as the releases we could buy. The Beatles & Europeans hated the US releases. The Beatles have chosen to remix recent releases to achieve a ballance between the two versions, yet I still enjoy the US versions more. Simply my opinion. Steven Pettinga, Indianapolis.
You need to also run the Apple Music ATMOS mix through that software. It is noticeably lower in volume than the stereo mix, as are most of the ATMOS mixes on Apple Music.
I know it’s just the way it was but I never could stand the stereo separation on this album. I agree the new remix is too compressed but I’ll take it over the wonky old stereo mix. I wish they could have got Peter Cobbin to do these new remixes instead. He knocked it out of the park with the yellow submarine songbook I thought.
First of all.. there is no 1987 remix of Revolver. The only two albums that Martin remixed in the 80s was Help and Rubber Soul. The 1987 cd of Revolver is the original 1966 mix.
Of course. It's just to make people understand that what we sae dealing with is a CD from 1987. In fact ifnyou look at the thumbnail and title this is clear.
I did a scan on some of the stuff you were talking about. I was seeing like the detailed mathematical stuff in relation to patterns of A.I. or whatever, but it's more about the basic conception of the thing at this point. My thinking seems to be oriented by a type of monism. There's like a pictogram that develops into marking that's abstracted from the original image based symbol. So I like wonder what the run of cuneiform (as one mentioned example) was like from beginning to end. So at the beginning you have like a pictogram. Similarly at the beginning you have like the 1966 revolver session. So like my understanding is that idea referenced guiding the session was this idea of human interaction being structured by the artificial apparatus. It's like the structure of the artificial apparatus, the medium, it's a connection into an "artificial intellegence" and the term and concept "reflective intelligence" seems interesting here. So like overtime the intellectual product changes form in the way it's stored and re-transmitted. It's like turned into a CD / Laser system. And then it's like turned into a digital file that's available for streaming etc. The electronics have changed and perhaps . . . evolved. So like you have to put something into the file that matches the new electronics. But it's this basic structure from the beginning that's in the details of the file. It's the mathematical / logic / reasoning ~ patterns that are considered to be and perhaps functioning structurally as artificial intelligence. As I was saying my thinking tends towards monism.
I really love this. The new treatment makes it sound like it was recorded in the 70s. While I don’t mind 60s stereo recordings in a room with speakers, they suck with headphones because of the imbalance of the primary tracks like drums and bass being either left or right. It’s not natural. I like listening to music when out walking. This mix is far more engaging than anything before it. It’s a rich, highly detailed mix with a beautiful bass ooooomph!x
@@anadialog was I? Amazing how time flies! As a CD hunter myself I enjoy your videos! It’s early press for me! I must do a video on my CDs soon! Happy New Year!
question. Could they A.I. fix the 1962 live in Hamburg 1 track as in bringing out the vocals especially which is non existant in the 1977 official release on lingasong? heck, could they not use this for ALL bad sounding bootleg concerts ect.... to make everything sound studio quality wise?
It's silly stuff going on.. I question as well why they allow some guy who makes horrible movies about Tolkein stories to have it it with the Beatles archives. Just money making schemes .
They spent so little effort in the stereo mixes compared to the mono mixes that even George Martin didn’t care for the stereo mixes in many cases. When the 1987 CDs came out, he made new mixes of Help and Rubber Soul to replace the original flawed stereo versions.
@@anadialog Incorrect! You didn’t read the article. It clearly states he did remixes for help and rubber soul, but he was happy with the original stereo mix of revolver. Read the article again, it is NOT a remix!
Would love to hear your thoughts on some of the reissues of Italian 70’s prog bands or other Italian artists that people should check out and add to their collection.
My father has the Revolver on Vinyl (bought on the launch period) and the cover looks like a bigger version of your 87' CD cover... It's white and the back has only the list of the musics...
I totally agree with your comments about the Taxman track. I hear and feel exactly the same! AAD to my ears is much less compressed, more airy, more defined, more natural voices and instruments, it´s easy to feel the environment of the recording. Thanks for letting me know that old AAD CDs are better than the new ones with digital remixing - some of them are inaudible because they have an harsh digital sound (even through the Philips TDA1541A chip). Best wishes and keep rocking.
In this case.. ..and speaking to your original comment... but AAD can be as compressed. The compression is a secondary aspect. They are talking about the lineage of source material with AAD..not how it was mastered to that format.
I mean compression is a mixing tool not a disease. Choose what mix you prefer but one thing is for sure to me : this 2022 remix sounds very good on my system and the seperation might be "unnatural" but i prefer it over the 80's mix. In the end it's a mater of taste. And dynamic range is not that big of a deal for rock music like it is for classical or jazz so judging the mix with the compression as first parameter is missing the point in my (humble) opinion.
agree with you, but as other users have said, the issue here is not the analog approach, is just compression and limiting used to a degree where it affects the listening experience, and that can affect both analog or digital.
Brilliiant, thank you so much. You've nailed it. Why is the Giles Martin mix getting such positive reactions? It's horrible. It's oppressively loud all the time. The voices have developed a most unpleasant quality through being isolated and brought forward. There's way too much bass and I hate the forward presentation of the drums. What really killed the 2022 mix for me was observing the waveforms of 'Here, there and everywhere' alongside 'Yellow submarine'. The first song in 1987 is quieter than the second one. Moreover, Yellow submarine gets a little louder as it progresses. All of these welcome dynamic nuances are negated by Giles Martin, who has boosted the dynamics throughout to maximum levels. It's brutal.
Thanks! What scares me is that from now on all these new remixes are going to be the standard remix (untill you do a new one). Meaning that the only way to hwarvthe original is to hunt for it and most people in the future will never bother...
It’s getting hugely positive reactions because the original 1966 stereo mix is horrendous with its hard panning. The best way to listen to Revolver is Mono. But if it has to be stereo then the 2022 stereo mix is far superior to the 1966 stereo mix - that’s the vast consensus.
In 2004, a university classmate shared with me the entire Beatles discography in MP3, and that's the version of Revolver I use to listen to until today, because in this one Paul's voice in Eleanor Rigby is always centered, not like in the 1987 edition shown here. Also, in Yellow Submarine, after Ringo sings "as we live a life of ease", Paul sings/screams "a life of ease", but in some editions Paul's scream is not present. Even more: in the MP3 version I have, Ringo starts singing "In the town..." without a guitar strum in the word "In", but in the Super Deluxe edition there is a guitar strum in the word "In". Paul's scream and the guitar strum at the beginning are not present in the 2009 remaster, either. So... there are so many editions of this album, and I thought that the version I have in MP3 was the one from 1987, but now I see it's not. What edition would it be?
I thought the 2022 remix was good, even great with some songs ('Got to Get you Into my Life' is exceptional) but I was really disappointed with 'She Said She Said'. It sounds really empty and thin compared to the 2009 remaster or even the 1987 CD. Overall I wasn't as impressed with this remix of Revolver as much as the previous albums. The Sgt. Pepper remix is still my favorite.
Ideally you should compare the 2009 remaster to the 2022 remix, as those are the two versions that are commercially available today. That gives your viewers the best opportunity to choose what version to buy.
@@anadialog The 1987 CD is also a remaster. It's the 1966 mix remastered for digital. The 2009 CD is just a different remastering of the same 1966 mix. If you can compare the 2022 remix to the 1987 CD, you should also be able to compare it to the 2009 CD. After all, wasn't it your point to compare mixes? The 1966 mix is present on both the 1987 and 2009 CDs.
Hey Guido. Great video. But to remind you that EMI still has the 4-track session tapes before they were bounced down to add more overdubs. All the session recordings were synced up, and then whatever AI was used was applied. Many times, when the Beatles did a basic rhythm track, most (if not all) instruments WERE recorded to one or 2 tracks, locking in some of the elements. This is where the AI came into play most. I enjoy the remix for what it is…and how they achieved separation…but, I still go with the original mixes as my go-to.
So far my experience is that the remasters may technically sound better, but they do take the original soul out of the music. And that's what it's all about, after all. Anyway, I'm from the older generation.
Excellent review and I agree with your comments, however! you did not mention the 2009 Remaster which is much better than this new remix, I also got the the SHM{2009-Remaster} version from cdJapan which is even better! cleaner top end, more detail revealed etc.. I dont rate Giles Martins Remixes, Having heard what he did to Sargent Pepper! Overloud, compressed, the 2009 is much better and the best version is the original japan SHM version which is superb! On the original cd version I did find our UK version sounded better than the made in Holland pressings which some people got in the uk when first released, the Holland pressings where tinny sounding compared to the UK pressing
"On the original cd version I did find our UK version sounded better than the made in Holland pressings which some people got in the uk when first released, the Holland pressings where tinny sounding compared to the UK pressing" sounds impossible, this is digital, it is not an analog cut
Fyi: i only have CDs, no vinyl . The 1987 STEREO mixes are strong IMO, definitely a snug & secure second place. Before that however, I gotta go with the 2009 mono (you never listen to She's Leaving Home the same again). From there the rest of the remixes/remasters are all a good third place. I'm just glad I own them all. 😂👍👍👍
Man I watch your videos a lot, and right now I am just hearing about that you are an Archaeologist; I'm an Anthropologist and History Professor but in the French/latín American scholarly tradition. Keep it up with your videos. And I would like to read some work of you
I have the Beatles blue album 1967-1970 on LP and the 1993 CD version. In 2010 (or 2011?) I bought the new 2010-version which they say is superb. I was disappointed, the CDs from 1993 sound better to me, so I keep listening to the old CDs. By the way, I hate the cheap cardboard CD cases. My CDs must not scratch or grind when I take them out and put them in. So I cut up cardboard cases and use them as inserts in proper plastic CD cases.
I dunno why the hate of the old simple stereo mixes....but my brain assembles that wide stereo pan to something that sounds great. I guess not everyone has that combine option in their brain stem. Maybe a firmware update is needed? Also..my brain has a 'digital' distortion limiter. That's why the new remix goes in the trash.
There are two issues people have with the original stereo mix - The Beatles never intended the album for Stereo. The Stereo mix was a rush job made only because EMI required it - The four track master limited what could be done in stereo, leading to a strange listening experience especially on headphones.
@@tuckertastictk exactly. The original stereo mixes have always sounded horrendous especially when listening on headphones - the 2022 mix fixes all the horrible hard panning issues. I totally understand why people love the mono mix - it’s sounds great. But the original 1966 stereo mix is awful, and the 2022 is far superior.
It’s not a 1987 mix, it’s the original 1966 stereo mix. The original mix is on analog tape, it’s not limited to 44.1/16 only the digital transfer for cd is limited to that resolution.
Is it just me or do most audiophiles have mediocre sound? No matter what they have. I haven't been in dozens of audiophiles homes, but I have been in quite a few and except for one guy, whose sound I thought was real good; none of the others sounded anything like a musical experience. Some of them had power amplifiers that only a very strong person could lift. Priced in the 5 figure range. A lot of bass weight, but it sounded like it needed to lose some weight in order to be more nimble. Heft but no rhythm. Slow and bogged down sounding, which brought the whole experience down; and everything down with it in fact. Infinity and a select few other vintage speakers whose price was within reason, had seperate smaller midbass drivers, in addition to a larger big woofer. The midbass drivers were light enough to reproduce the fancy range without the midbass having the heavy ponderous quality of the lower bass, which the bigger woofer took care of. Same goes with stores. Rarely have I seen elevated cables or much attention paid to vibration isolation. I would much rather hear a much less expensive tweaked and well set up system than what we usually get to hear in audio showrooms. I think there is a certain level of sound where magic begins, that once heard, many audiophiles strive to attain; but never do. It requires expert tonal matching, unusual performance, , great set up and attention to details, and the right room acoustic, which even if you know your stuff you really have to be lucky on.
Interesting point. I agree on the fact that high quality gear is only a part of the equation and it is subject to a restraint sound if not properly tuned together with the listening ambient.
@@anadialog Yes, I think the word tweak has with it, some connotation of the word slight, and maybe that's why people don't take tweaking their system seriously. You can more than double your sound quality with tweaking. It's rare when a piece of audio gear itself will give you an over 40% improvement. Usually when we make a fine upgrade, it is in the 15 to 25% range. So 4 or 5 times 40% is very substantial and not slight at all.
I went back to my '87 copy. I did not prefer it. I HATE the lazy, late panning of Paul's vocals on "Eleanor Rigby!" The 2009 CD was a bit better. I do not have the new remix, yet. My favorite mix of the couple of Revolver songs so far are on the 1999 "Yellow Submarine Songtrack," CD. That one included "Yellow Submarine," "Eleanor Rigby," and "Love You To." Those were really nice mixes. That album fixed "Eleanor..." and added "a life of ease..." echo on the title track.
I agree 100%. The 1999 Yellow Submarine remixes are exceptional for all of tracks, the Revolver ones especially. We even get a hint of what a remixed Rubber Soul could sound like. Ahead of its time.
ADD is just overEQ - my question is is it possible to record this quality on machine you show in video, it seems that record machines was much more advanced in those days... I think.
I prefer the new mix. What strikes me the most is how well the original material was miced in the first place. Geo Martin and G Emerick did a fantastic job in 1966.
Theres plenty of good reviews on the Giles Martin Releases, in fact untill i seen this guy i wasn't aware of anyone being unhappy. unfortunately there is a anologue crowd that refuse to accept digital music, usually they are vinyl people and i suspect this guy is one of them.
I listened to the samples and I do prefer the AAD, much easier on the ears. No boosted compressed crap for me, thanks... Also, they changed a lot even the stereo image... Not cool.
I just bought this CD. I'm an AI/ML/Deep Learning Engineer and neural networks can learn very well how an artist sounds...we can then use these AIs for source separation. In signal processing this area is called Signal separation..and also lookup Cocktail party effect.
I loved the concept of this remix but I didn't feel it was executed well I bought the vinyl box set everything but the remixed album sounded great There was significant distortion on the inner grooves and for some strange reason the remix was very noisy everything else in the box set sounded fantastic the outtakes were awesome the mono album was great and the bonus 45 was okay but that remix was just too damn loud I was convinced that it was just a pressing issue with my particular copy so I went and bought the single remixed album again in hopes that the problem would be resolved but it was the same problem I really wish the biggest band in the world would get audiophile quality pressings of their albums but for some reason they chose to release on subpar vinyl
I just can't get past the separation in the early stereo mixes. When it comes down to it, mono is and likely always will be the best way to listen to the Beatles.
Can we have a discussion of Telarc and their DDD Compact Discs going back for 4 decades! And question #2. This is why I don't buy modern re-masters unless they have special merit to them. Great videos. Keep them coming.
@@anadialog Do you have Telarc's DDD Papa Doo Run Run disc? It's a Beachboy cover disc that was absolutely hand crafted to redbook standard. The performers are not too shabby either. Very hard to find. I have two. Discogs might have some. You won't be sorry. It blows everyone away that I have demonstrated it to. The dynamic range is breathtaking. Be warned if you have your volume at 12 o'clock.
It would have been interesting to hear some comments about the 2009 remaster as well, how it compares to the 1987. Because the new one is a remix after all!
The original 1987 CDs didn't have the Apple logo, it's the same master though... wait, why am I writing this? It actually sounds fine on any version, so who cares.
No such thing as the '1987 mix' of course, but there was a mastering of the original 1966 stereo master reel. I dont mean to be a pedant but it's a crucial difference between mix and mastering.
If you want to compare mixes compare the original stereo vs mono of Sgt. Pepper etc. I didn’t understand what a masterpiece this album was until I heard it properly in mono. I guess people are used to the fake stereo that the Beatles didn’t endorse. Oh well. George Martin remixed Rubber Soul and Help for the 1987 stereo CDs because he realized the issues that you’re used to.
I clicked when i got the notification because i like this channel. Then i realised it was about the Beatles.... Hmmm, I don't know if it because i'm English but i cant stand the "Fab 4". They're a band for screaming teenage girls... they're the "Take That" or "BoyZone" of the 1960's. I think i'll sit this one out people.... Enjoy! (there's no accounting for bad taste... LOL)
@@pedromarques7457 Correct, i'm certainly not "one of them". Johnny Rotten had the right idea. He sacked the first Bass player of the Sex Pistols for liking the Beatles and ABBA. Isn't music wonderful in that we can enjoy individual taste? I remember the Beatles shoot to fame. In the UK, it was mostly women that liked the Beatles while men preferred the Stones.... Not so in the US. That's probably why John Lennon move there.... to get away from the screaming teenage girls.
This is obvious that new remixes have been done for doing playlists for public places like shops or for radio broadcasts not to break with today's productions, even with the great job done with stereo 2009 remasters. I have the mono box and I think this is the best way to listen to The Beatles but most people will think it's like watching TV in B/W. This is a kind of a relay for new generations to hear the Beatles in better conditions. Purists won't be happy with this. The band is great but even if G. Martin made a revolution in recording techniques, they evolved at the wrong era. Maybe today's music lacks of real melodies and need much simple studio effects that doesn't give public's confidence in artists' performances.
Audio enthusiasts should learn how to modify. Audiophiles who know what they are doing can remove the dinner dishes from their table, replace them with an audio component whose top is off and ready for some internal work and before the suds in the sink go away can make their sound go from AAA to AAAA. Your sound starts coming from the ceiling. Don't bother to strain your neck looking up. The sound will come right down to you. You can hear the sound the stylus makes riding the groove. Not from surface noise either. The sound keeps getting better and better, which mean the limit of the cds, lps and tapes haven't been reached yet. Something tells me maybe it doesn't even work that way. I can't imagine improving something and not getting an improvement in sound back. Fun hobby!
Whilst I like the sound of un-hyper compressed/limited AAD CDs, personally I 'd rather listen to the new [better] mixes of Revolver in ADD, than the old mixes in AAD. In a perfect world Giles Martin would not have mastered the new release as hot as he did, but I think he hasn't pushed the loudness as far as he could have, which can only be a good thing. But here's a question...why do you think bands and/or record companies don't release their 24 bit versions in quieter mastering? Why do they push out 24 bit versions with the same master as the 16 bit? Surely to make the most of a 24 bit 'audiophile' listening experience, you would have thought they'd put out more dynamic versions of the songs? It's got the point that one just can't appreciate a 24 bit recording over a 16 bit recording, because the hyper compression acts against any improvement that could have been heard IMO.
Because it is time consuming and expensive. They do one mix and slightly different masters, in some cases the same master is just reduced in resolution and sampling rate to fit the various inferior formats
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
Regardless of the SPARS codes, mixes, remixes, masterings etc... I'm still a fan of those 80s' (and a bit early 90s') silver-looking CDs. I like them and grab them wherever I find one.
Me too, I love listening to the original stereo mixes the Beatles themselves didn’t intend on releasing. I can’t get enough of not hearing Ringo’s drums because they’re buried on one side of the left or right speaker. I also love the false stereo edit of Rigby. What’s even better besides the hard panning are the missing sound effects on Sgt. Pepper. We were given these original stereo versions on cd with no choice of the proper mono mixes. George Martin himself remixed the albums Help! and Rubber Soul in 1987 because he realized the issues. The issue here is you’re used to awkward mixes as these were the only versions you can pick up. The songs deserve better! You’re doing an injustice settling for the 1987 mixes.
I agree, and I've actually pivoted a lot of my collecting to CDs from that era.
Thanks!
Thanks for bringing this stuff to our attention. I gained huge appreciation for it when I watched the Michael Fremer RUclips video about his 2017 testimony in Quincy Jones' lawsuit against the Michael Jackson estate. It was all about horrible remixes, and Quincy was essentially saying his reputation was damaged by the Jackson estate's decision to remix songs and albums Quincy had produced for MIchael J.
With the price of music these days (in whatever format) it's good to have a heads up to avoid getting screwed on sound quality. I've had my share of disappointments with these remix/remaster fiascos. A real butt burner.
I agree as well. As you said, Quincy sued the estate for putting his name on the remixed versions. Jackson's estate like Jimi Hendrix's estate has been doing their best to get out more merchandise, despite it not being better or worse, they are redundant. I went through my MJ cds and found that "Invincible" to be the last great wonderful album, which came out before he passed. He was suing Sony for lack of promotion and they were countersuing for taking to long and spending too much money.. I found the 2008 25th Anniversary release of Thriller to be a waste on money, except for "For All Time". Same with Xscape and the awful THIS IS IT. These were not songs or versions that Michael approved or would have approved. If Sony & his estate were smart they would create 3, maybe 4 albums which are cohesive. He was tying to keep his previous audience while trying to use up to date hit producers to stay current. They should create a CD of classic sounding MJ, a Dance or Disco collection of MJ, & a Hip Hop MJ. His catalogue as currently released is schizophrenic and disjointed. Invincible is clearly overlooked and his currently my favorite Michael Jackson album. There are better ways of keeping his recordings vital than what they are doing. Yet another Best Of, is unnecessary. Steven Pettinga, Indianapolis.
Would love to know how the 2009 version measures up.
Great video
Loudness wars... have been a disaster for so many CDs.
It never ceases to amaze me how many record labels are still releasing these super loud discs. As you say, on some you can actually hear the clipping - or at least on a half decent system.
The absence of dynamics is annoying to me, as well as softrr instruments being pushed back hard the moment the drums come in.
The 2022 mix overall is definitely my favourite, but Revolver is such a great album anyway...
Keep these coming Guido!! The poor people who have bought the latest version and always believe it to be the best, may be offended to know that the past was good- really it was. Giles really should not think he can outdo his father- George was a master! Onya for doing these comparisons as it keeps some reality in the recording industry / market today.
Totally agree if you have good (,not great) play back equipment the original George Martin and the Beatles intended it
It’s adorable that you listen to the original stereo mixes when they were an after thought. You should be listening to the mono versions if you’re a purist. The Beatles themselves were upset by the hard panning, often bad edits, and missing sound effects on some of the original stereo tracks. Albums like Sgt. Pepper and Revolver were clearly mono recordings the Beatles helped mix themselves. It’s laughable when purists listen to the “original stereo” and criticize the new mixes.
@@girlswanted7 your theory has just one flaw: George Martin has said that up until Revolver, The Beatles WEREN’T always in the Studio for the Mono mixes, and often their suggestions for the recording was often made DURING the recording session, not always the mixing sessions (such as John wanting to have his vocal sounding different on the third verse as opposed to the first two verses).
I'm pretty sure that most of the compression is the CD mastering of the 2022. The new mix sounds pretty good on vinyl. Original stereo mix on vinyl is not great in any case.
Thank you bro.
Subscribed...Revolver is one of my favorite beatles albums. I have the 1987 cd, can stream the remix, and have a Parlophone album remaster on the way that is well regarded. I'm looking forward to listening to the differences you described and am hoping the NM - album can be my go to when it arrives.
THANKS, I APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT IS HAPPENING, AND IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR OLD ANALOG 😊💚💚💚
Can't deny it;-)
There maybe parts of the 1987 cd that I like more than the 2022 remix, but overall I think I like the remix better. I like giving poor old Ringo a bit more credit than he normally get by hearing those drums. I'm not sure I totally buy-in to the idea of mono being the best (that may have been the Beatles' favorite format), but most stereo Beatle recordings give my a headache while listening on headphones. Good Review, Thank You
I actually bought into the mono thing and sought out the mono box set when I saw the rave reviews. It’s definitely not bad but me personally I just don’t like how mono sounds, so I agree with you about mono. Since I listen to headphones a lot I definitely like these remixes.
I agree about the mono mixes. Often the level balance is better and the stereo panning becomes distracting. Otoh the crash cymbals can cut into everything in the mono mixes harshly at times, too.
Ha...to go on a ramble - I really dunno why people feel like Ringo is underrated when he's widely regarded as having excellent song feel, a supremely cool sound and a solid meter.
He just isn't the fills and flourishes 'animal' that Moon or Peart were, nor the chops-monster like Baker and Bonham were. He clacks on the rims and fails to find the funkiest pocket sometimes, but hey he's a multi-gazillionaire with tons of friends. Ringo won the life-lottery jackpot any way you slice it!
I finally had time to listen to the new CD, both on (small desktop) speakers and on my HiFi Man 400i headphones/Woo WA7 amp. It's probably worth its admission price for "Elenor Rigby" alone! Paul's voice is warm and very present. He sounds more human. And the way the strings (bolder than the somewhat thin sound of earlier versions) are split to right and left channels frees the different instruments to play off each other in an effect that I find much more emotionally gripping.
Yes the 2022 mix is the new benchmark re: all such future projects. I’m certain ‘Pepper’ shall have to be revisited.
For the 1987 cd release, the cover like that wasn't that big of a deal at the time for me because I was just glad to see Beatles albums on cd.
Bought the 1987 cd in the 90s, always thought is was thin sounding, the mono vinyl sounds perfect, but the new mix might be better for earphone listening on the train for example (no irritating stereo separation and a bit more soundscape than mono).
Absolutely! I compared the 2009 remaster to the new 2022 remix thru headphones last night and the latter is the clear winner. I bought the 5CD box and am glad i did, even when i’ve never been that heavy into the Fab4.
The Sgt. Pepper 6-disc box is also very good, unlike what some people want to make us believe. I have 2,000 CDs and 2,000 LPs. Sometimes one format sounds better than the other.
@@musiclassica ahh, you beat me, I have about 2000 cd's and 300 lp's. I have all the remixed beatles so far, all worth while. Rubber soul is next...
@@JMG72ARG Thanks for the reply. I’m just older than you. Otherwise i’m sure you’d have beaten me by now. 🙂 Keep on enjoying the music!
The 1987/87 cds does sound very thin with hardly no bass at all. And there is a flatness to the overall mastering.
On the other hand one or two songs on the new Revolver mix has too much bass.
@@JMG72ARG привет!Какие ремиксы Битлз уже вышли?
Thanks for your analysis..... Seems almost every AAD CD that I pick up has better more engaging sound at least so far.
You sure do love that DISTORTION, which is ENDEMIC to analog.
Tape hiss is the recorded sound of the tape crossing the recording head. But that guarantees it's analog, eh?
And then there's the distortion added by tube amps. And then distortion added by stylus in groove.
But let's all just pretend it's "warmth".
@ModBopBeat Yes: the "warmth" is DISTORTION. But tell us: how are you a "purist" about the "purity" of the sound if you are willing to obscure it behind distortion?
"All of the other things going on in analog"? Such as? Tape hiss is the recording of the sound of the tape crossing the recording head. Tape hiss is a "benefit" of analog!?
DISTORTING the original recording is a "benefit" to the original recording!?
Shouldn't you be learning how to LISTEN instead of bashing advances in technology that remove the distortions?
@ModBopBeat Compression is a staple even DURING recording.
Don't EVER claim to be an "audiophile" by both defending distortion and then engaging in reductive distortion by lambasting compression as ONLY responsible for the "loudness wars".
And the bashing of digital in favor of analog needs to die as an "issue". But the stupid will cling to it rather than learn how to HEAR the music instead of whining that they non-music artifacts are gone.
@ModBopBeat Oh, god, ANOTHER addicted to meaningless pseudo-intellectual labels:
" NEO-Garage Rock".
During 1968 the informal debate was over who "invented" "Hard Rock": "The Kinks" or "The Yardbirds". Eventually the label "Hard Rock" was being tossed around more generally -- even though "The Kinks," as example, also recorded BALLADS. Then that became "official" as "Heavy Metal" -- which is nothing more than MARKETING.
I saw it happen: after "The Beatles" broke up rock splintered into this and that pseudo-"genre" until, by the 1980s, practically every band was claiming to be its own "genre". It's all hogwash.
So-called "garage rock" was not a plan, an intent. They were recordings made with, usually, shitty equipment in less-than-standard recording environments. I was in one of those bands, and believe me, we didn't like rehearsing in a garage, or having shitty guitars and amplifiers.
@ModBopBeat Want to IMITATE "garage rock"? Then get shitty equipment and scramble for places to practice such as a band member's parent's garage.
The MORAL of this story is ANALOG is always a great ingredient, in addition to being a great main course. It makes a good side dish too, for those who listen primarily to cds, but have vinyl playback too. Don't get me wrong, I modify cd players and as the clarity, transparency, purity and openness increase; the sound starts to sound more like analog, and it is really good. But there is an underlying brightness and edge in its heritage, but that seems to lessen as the mods do their thing and improve the sound. The thing perhaps more bothersome in its genetics is glare. If you compare a great reel tape recording vs. the cd, you will see what I mean. If you have an integrated amp with a treble control, you can boost the treble till it's pretty high frequency emphasized with reel to reel without it sounding harsh. Try that with digital. The sound will be unlistenable and full of glare; grain and harshness, which it isn't with analog. So what Guido is really showing is that a dash of analog is good; a dash of digital is not so good. I do enjoy my cds too though. With the best of them, anyone who would pick on sound that good is really nitpicking. I wish all the cds released would be as good as the really exceptional ones.
A biggest consideration than analog Vs digital and what gear they used is the skills and artistic sense of the mixing engineer. Like Geoff Emerick and George Martin were amazing, It's not about analog or digital but their musical taste and how they balance, use effects, etc... It's an art form ✌️
Analog is not always some magical ingredient....I remember the 70s and 80s well, and there was more crappy analog gear in the past than good; _we simply choose to remember and maintain the best stuff of the past, while the chaff is discarded and forgotten._
Good sound is good sound. It's the expertise and experience involved that makes all the difference, not the medium.
Early digital masters sounded crappy because hardly anybody knew what they were doing. It also took analog well over decade to sound _any good whatsoever._ The first generation of transistors sounded flat out terrible for hi-fi use.
I don’t understand the hate towards the 1987 digital remasters. I think they are the best way to listen to the Beatles digitally. George was a genius when he decided to remaster Please Please Me and With The Beatles in Mono. Sounds amazing!
Some say the tape head was misaligned, partly because they played back the mono tapes on a stereo machine. Supposedly the sound suffered as a result. I wouldn't know; I never had the 1987 issues of either album, but I do agree with you that mono is the go-to for them. Please Please Me in mono is amazing.
@@FrederikOlsenIt suffers a little bit, mostly in the song “Please Please Me”, and the very end (the last five seconds or so) from “I’ll Be Back”, the last one having a REALLY noticeable high frequency cut. Aside from that, they sound really great, and, most importantly, are completely flat, unchanged transfers from the tapes (except for the remixes of Help! and Rubber Soul), without the overpowered bass and unnecessary edits that the 2009 remasters brought. This really shines in their later albums. Try to listen to the ‘87 remasters of Abbey Road or even The White Album of Let It Be. Nothing will get closer to the original tapes.
I’m not getting the vinyl. I’m just not all that enthusiastic about spending $200 dollars on more yet more vinyl redundancy for changes I’ll be able to hear just fine on CD.
That being said I really like the new mixes both mono and stereo of "Revolver" on CD.
I know I’m not supposed to, but I generally like the sound quality and mix of the 2022 mix the best. Thanks for doing this!
I’m with you man
No problem! This isn't a space to judge nor we are saying my conclusions are correct...what I express in my videos is clearly my OPINION! ;-)
I enjoyed this mix, but i don't like the way GM as tried to create a modern treatment of the material (especially on pepper. In some ways this is needed but we don't need compressed sound.
Just a note: ER was the only track for which GM didn't need to use AI, since even the original had separated tracks for voice and strings. So that would have been useless. Apart from tech details, I have to say that listening to this 2022 mix with headphones is a pure joy. So many revelations like, for instance, the second guitar lick in She said, she said, just to mention one. I can accept the mono as superior, but if we are talking about headphones, the 2017-2020s remixes are the way to go.
Interesting I didn't know that. Nevertheless, the results are quite different.
I don’t believe this to be true
@@jackfalco5351 well, then Martin told a lie 🤷
Just to clarify - what you call 'micro-clipping' is incorrect. Using a Peak Limiter looks exactly like this - and no sound is lost to clipping nor is there distortion introduced. The peaks are brought down to a precise level and the 'floor' is brought it up. So these new tracks are not clipped - but peak limited as the last stage in mastering process.
True, I actually do that when I master the audio for my videos. In fact, clipping is more of a recording issue. Thanks for clarifying that!
The new mixes sounds great! The instruments & vocals are nicely placed across the listening field.
There is no 1987 mix actually, it's only a digital remaster. The mix was done in 1966. 1987 remaster was pretty much flat transfers, it retains more dynamic from the master tapes than the LP versions (that's the big difference between a CD and a vinyl). 2009 remaster was EQed and compressed a bit. And Giles Martin (or his mastering engineer) is too heavy on compression. Another wasted remix. Shame.
AAD or ADD has nothing to do with this. The new mixes were made using hi-resolution digital. The 1987 remasters had 44,1 Khz 16 bit technology.
If you check the thumbnail of the video you will see that I indicated that. For easier comprehension I called it a mix of 1987, but I think this is clear.
THANKS GUIDO, FOR EXPLAINING THIS,TRYING TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT YOU MEANT 😅😎🤗💚💚💚
Thank YOU! If you have any questions go ahead!
There was a 2009 digital remaster by Guy Massey and Steve Rooke. Did you miss this one?
That is a Remaster, we are discussing and confronting mixes
The remix sounds like an AI mix heard through some streaming service. The dynamic range is gone.. blown out, sounds sharp, even though the visual representation is a lower 'db' .. it's been pretty much mangled by limiting / compression. Where the heck did the feedback hum go from the amps at the start of the song????? That speaks to my 'AI' point.. they let the computer run without review? Silly stuff here. Why is a guy who makes crappy movies now trying to force feed musical remixes of classic material? He was chosen.. I get it..but why and by whom? I get why this could be appealing to some.. but again that's just the people who listen to streaming services all day and have zero discernment in general.
Even though the original Stereo mix seems wonky.. it fills in very nicely overall and represents a clean dynamic range compared to this AI audio production chachkie.
@8:18 - interesting when I view the remix in Audition..the waveform is down -6db across the spectrum. (checked in Audition and RX) .but obviously brick wall limited. So they brick wall limted it and then pushed the overall db down to -6db for a safety net of digital distortion peaks? But when I look at the Elanor rigby digital remix.. it is also brick walled but peaks at 0db.. did your Taxman remix file get dB lowered before you sent it?
Yes of course, as stated in the video the two Taxman tracks were normalized in order to have the same perceived loudness. That makes a fair evaluation. I didn't touch Eleanor Rigby.
@@anadialog sure .. but why not represent them as they are found on the release?
Great video can You please put more tracks to download in high Quality is excellent
It's one thing to do the 'Deep Learning' procedure to it, but any potential benefits are wiped out by making it 'Loud'.
Good point
those video are wonderul, very informative and unique!
Hey what About the Revolver LP version made in 1982 by MFSL OMR on JVC vinyl?? This is my best
Get a better stereo 😄
As always a great video, I’m happy because I just picked up that 87 I just picked up that 86 evolver cd for $2.50
Cool!
Ciao, le versioni SACD, MQA, HQ, SHM-CD sono migliori di AAD?Quale formato scegliere se non c'è AAD. Dove acquistare rock progressivo italiano, ad esempio Le Orme, Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso perché è difficile con queste band italiane.
Salve! AAD è solo un normale CD con registrazione e mix fatto in digital. Dunque mon significa che sarà sicuramente meglio. Io trovo che siano meglio rispetto a quelli più nuovi, anche perchè il mastering è peggiore. Teoricamente I formation elencati (a parte HQ e SHM che hanno materiali migliori) sono superiority.
Interesting video, thank you! My take is that it's your own ears that will tell you which is the best mix version format etc. And I respect choices different from mine. Music is after all an emotive art form. That said I think the Beatles work best in mono, although I enjoy the ping pong stereo of Please please me over speakers! Shame you didn't compare the 2009 mixes which to me sounded mushy against the 1987 CDs. Great work!
Absolutely, no right choice here. But I do think that we must somehow preserve the original mixes.
Like your channel and agree with most of your comments. Very nice job here. I saw your review of SACD's, and XRCD's and I think remastered/remixed CDs are a better current solution. Most artists/labels are re-releasing prior works. What better way for an artist to keep the revenue stream coming in for old works? And now we have books of the albums to buy as well. I've bought the entire Beatles catalog on vinyl in the 70's, CDs in the 80s, and some 2009 remasters, and 2XXX Deluxe remasters, along with other artists. How many times are we going to pay for the same songs again? Then we get to compare the versions all over again? It gets a little tiring. I guess if you really love the music, it is a labor of love in the end....?
I had always been amazed by the Beatles CDs. Starting with a 4 track machines, their CD releases were very satisfactory. Even as complex as Sgt Peppers was, it was done on a 4 track recorder. As 8 and 16 track recorders came out, artists & producers had and have more leverage to try to achieve perfection. That is a trap. Lindsey Buckingham has a what? A 32 track studio in his home. The greater capability to fix mistakes and add effects or instruments, has made most of his solo recordings and Fleetwood Mac's Tusk, sounds overwrought and fussy. He got to spend too much time thinking about it and you loose spontaneity Further remastering has brought out certain nuance & elements that you couldn't hear before; but does that make them better? It's up to you. The Beatles catalogue is remarkable in that they had 4 tracks for half of their albums. Despite the age of the technology; George Martin coaxed out the max of what they had to work with. They also did not have a lot of time, as they needed two to three albums per year to keep Capitol/EMI running. Now, as an American, I prefer Capitol's Duosonic stereo versions over the dry English recordings. You can still find the two, 4 disc collections for sale here & there. The executive running Capitol in the US during their original releases, was pushing for a better stereo releases, as they were $1 or $1.5 dollars more expensive. There is extreme stereo separation and more echo. It's what we grew up with and why we prefer them more than the European releases. I think Gile's remixing is quite good, but not quite as good as the releases we could buy. The Beatles & Europeans hated the US releases. The Beatles have chosen to remix recent releases to achieve a ballance between the two versions, yet I still enjoy the US versions more. Simply my opinion. Steven Pettinga, Indianapolis.
Weren't the firdt two albums done on 2 track tape?
You need to also run the Apple Music ATMOS mix through that software. It is noticeably lower in volume than the stereo mix, as are most of the ATMOS mixes on Apple Music.
I know it’s just the way it was but I never could stand the stereo separation on this album. I agree the new remix is too compressed but I’ll take it over the wonky old stereo mix. I wish they could have got Peter Cobbin to do these new remixes instead. He knocked it out of the park with the yellow submarine songbook I thought.
First of all.. there is no 1987 remix of Revolver. The only two albums that Martin remixed in the 80s was Help and Rubber Soul.
The 1987 cd of Revolver is the original 1966 mix.
Of course. It's just to make people understand that what we sae dealing with is a CD from 1987. In fact ifnyou look at the thumbnail and title this is clear.
I did a scan on some of the stuff you were talking about. I was seeing like the detailed mathematical stuff in relation to patterns of A.I. or whatever, but it's more about the basic conception of the thing at this point. My thinking seems to be oriented by a type of monism.
There's like a pictogram that develops into marking that's abstracted from the original image based symbol. So I like wonder what the run of cuneiform (as one mentioned example) was like from beginning to end. So at the beginning you have like a pictogram. Similarly at the beginning you have like the 1966 revolver session.
So like my understanding is that idea referenced guiding the session was this idea of human interaction being structured by the artificial apparatus. It's like the structure of the artificial apparatus, the medium, it's a connection into an "artificial intellegence" and the term and concept "reflective intelligence" seems interesting here.
So like overtime the intellectual product changes form in the way it's stored and re-transmitted. It's like turned into a CD / Laser system. And then it's like turned into a digital file that's available for streaming etc. The electronics have changed and perhaps . . . evolved. So like you have to put something into the file that matches the new electronics. But it's this basic structure from the beginning that's in the details of the file. It's the mathematical / logic / reasoning ~ patterns that are considered to be and perhaps functioning structurally as artificial intelligence.
As I was saying my thinking tends towards monism.
It's very confusing to label this video with the phrase 1987 mix.
I understand that. In fact I wrote 1966 mix in the thumbnail. I will change the date and see if that is more clear.
I really love this. The new treatment makes it sound like it was recorded in the 70s. While I don’t mind 60s stereo recordings in a room with speakers, they suck with headphones because of the imbalance of the primary tracks like drums and bass being either left or right. It’s not natural. I like listening to music when out walking. This mix is far more engaging than anything before it. It’s a rich, highly detailed mix with a beautiful bass ooooomph!x
You were one of my first commenters 5 years ago...thanks for still being here!
@@anadialog was I? Amazing how time flies! As a CD hunter myself I enjoy your videos! It’s early press for me! I must do a video on my CDs soon! Happy New Year!
question. Could they A.I. fix the 1962 live in Hamburg 1 track as in bringing out the vocals especially which is non existant in the 1977 official release on lingasong? heck, could they not use this for ALL bad sounding bootleg concerts ect.... to make everything sound studio quality wise?
There is no need to mess with George Martain's work this is almost sacrilege.
It's silly stuff going on.. I question as well why they allow some guy who makes horrible movies about Tolkein stories to have it it with the Beatles archives. Just money making schemes .
They spent so little effort in the stereo mixes compared to the mono mixes that even George Martin didn’t care for the stereo mixes in many cases. When the 1987 CDs came out, he made new mixes of Help and Rubber Soul to replace the original flawed stereo versions.
The volumes identical to the 2009 remasters, the difference is the music is centered so it appears louder. I compared them many times.
The 1987 cd is not a 1987 mix, it’s the original 1966 stereo mix. Only Help! And rubber soul were remixed for cd in 1986 and 1987.
Nope! George Martin did a special remix for the CD version. webgrafikk.com/blog/uncategorized/1987-cd-mixes/
@@anadialog Incorrect! You didn’t read the article. It clearly states he did remixes for help and rubber soul, but he was happy with the original stereo mix of revolver. Read the article again, it is NOT a remix!
Would love to hear your thoughts on some of the reissues of Italian 70’s prog bands or other Italian artists that people should check out and add to their collection.
On the list, glad you asked!
Mono forever.
whoa Elanor Rigby remix should be called Elanor Rugby.. aggressive ..those lead vocals WAAAYYY too loud . Holy clipped batman.
I’m going back to buying the original CDs. I love the Mono mixes though.
I prefer the hard case over the soft pack.
The new one is heavely compressed. Hence the clipping.
There is no clipping on the 2022
My father has the Revolver on Vinyl (bought on the launch period) and the cover looks like a bigger version of your 87' CD cover... It's white and the back has only the list of the musics...
I totally agree with your comments about the Taxman track. I hear and feel exactly the same! AAD to my ears is much less compressed, more airy, more defined, more natural voices and instruments, it´s easy to feel the environment of the recording. Thanks for letting me know that old AAD CDs are better than the new ones with digital remixing - some of them are inaudible because they have an harsh digital sound (even through the Philips TDA1541A chip). Best wishes and keep rocking.
In this case.. ..and speaking to your original comment...
but AAD can be as compressed. The compression is a
secondary aspect. They are talking about the lineage of source material
with AAD..not how it was mastered to that format.
@@SPINNINGMYWHEELS777 Yes indeed but ADD remix sound more compressed, and more stressed and more digital, to my ears in my system.
I mean compression is a mixing tool not a disease. Choose what mix you prefer but one thing is for sure to me : this 2022 remix sounds very good on my system and the seperation might be "unnatural" but i prefer it over the 80's mix. In the end it's a mater of taste.
And dynamic range is not that big of a deal for rock music like it is for classical or jazz so judging the mix with the compression as first parameter is missing the point in my (humble) opinion.
agree with you, but as other users have said, the issue here is not the analog approach, is just compression and limiting used to a degree where it affects the listening experience, and that can affect both analog or digital.
AAD or ADD is good for compact cassete recordings?
Sure, all good!
The mono boxset is a must have for the revolver album in mono. But the 1987 CD still the best you can get for the revolver stereo version.
Just got the mono boxset and I completely agree. Revolver, along with the early albums and Rubber Soul all sound supreme in mono.
Brilliiant, thank you so much. You've nailed it. Why is the Giles Martin mix getting such positive reactions? It's horrible. It's oppressively loud all the time. The voices have developed a most unpleasant quality through being isolated and brought forward. There's way too much bass and I hate the forward presentation of the drums. What really killed the 2022 mix for me was observing the waveforms of 'Here, there and everywhere' alongside 'Yellow submarine'. The first song in 1987 is quieter than the second one. Moreover, Yellow submarine gets a little louder as it progresses. All of these welcome dynamic nuances are negated by Giles Martin, who has boosted the dynamics throughout to maximum levels. It's brutal.
Giles is a squisher
Thanks! What scares me is that from now on all these new remixes are going to be the standard remix (untill you do a new one). Meaning that the only way to hwarvthe original is to hunt for it and most people in the future will never bother...
@@anadialog Yes, that scares me too. Also, on Qobuz at least one doesn't get access to the mono version either.
It’s getting hugely positive reactions because the original 1966 stereo mix is horrendous with its hard panning. The best way to listen to Revolver is Mono. But if it has to be stereo then the 2022 stereo mix is far superior to the 1966 stereo mix - that’s the vast consensus.
That is not the consensus
In 2004, a university classmate shared with me the entire Beatles discography in MP3, and that's the version of Revolver I use to listen to until today, because in this one Paul's voice in Eleanor Rigby is always centered, not like in the 1987 edition shown here. Also, in Yellow Submarine, after Ringo sings "as we live a life of ease", Paul sings/screams "a life of ease", but in some editions Paul's scream is not present. Even more: in the MP3 version I have, Ringo starts singing "In the town..." without a guitar strum in the word "In", but in the Super Deluxe edition there is a guitar strum in the word "In". Paul's scream and the guitar strum at the beginning are not present in the 2009 remaster, either.
So... there are so many editions of this album, and I thought that the version I have in MP3 was the one from 1987, but now I see it's not. What edition would it be?
I thought the 2022 remix was good, even great with some songs ('Got to Get you Into my Life' is exceptional) but I was really disappointed with 'She Said She Said'. It sounds really empty and thin compared to the 2009 remaster or even the 1987 CD. Overall I wasn't as impressed with this remix of Revolver as much as the previous albums. The Sgt. Pepper remix is still my favorite.
Ideally you should compare the 2009 remaster to the 2022 remix, as those are the two versions that are commercially available today. That gives your viewers the best opportunity to choose what version to buy.
I disagree, a remix can never br compared with a Remaster unless we are just comparing versions, then no problem.
@@anadialog The 1987 CD is also a remaster. It's the 1966 mix remastered for digital. The 2009 CD is just a different remastering of the same 1966 mix. If you can compare the 2022 remix to the 1987 CD, you should also be able to compare it to the 2009 CD. After all, wasn't it your point to compare mixes? The 1966 mix is present on both the 1987 and 2009 CDs.
Hey Guido. Great video. But to remind you that EMI still has the 4-track session tapes before they were bounced down to add more overdubs. All the session recordings were synced up, and then whatever AI was used was applied. Many times, when the Beatles did a basic rhythm track, most (if not all) instruments WERE recorded to one or 2 tracks, locking in some of the elements. This is where the AI came into play most. I enjoy the remix for what it is…and how they achieved separation…but, I still go with the original mixes as my go-to.
So far my experience is that the remasters may technically sound better, but they do take the original soul out of the music. And that's what it's all about, after all.
Anyway, I'm from the older generation.
Excellent review and I agree with your comments, however! you did not mention the 2009 Remaster which is much better than this new remix, I also got the the SHM{2009-Remaster} version from cdJapan which is even better! cleaner top end, more detail revealed etc.. I dont rate Giles Martins Remixes, Having heard what he did to Sargent Pepper! Overloud, compressed, the 2009 is much better and the best version is the original japan SHM version which is superb! On the original cd version I did find our UK version sounded better than the made in Holland pressings which some people got in the uk when first released, the Holland pressings where tinny sounding compared to the UK pressing
Yeah, we were focusing on mixes...
"On the original cd version I did find our UK version sounded better than the made in Holland pressings which some people got in the uk when first released, the Holland pressings where tinny sounding compared to the UK pressing" sounds impossible, this is digital, it is not an analog cut
did you compare them directly, the UK and Holland pressing of 1987 Revolver on the same equipment ?
Very interesting. I do enjoy the 2022 mix, but now I wonder ... ?
Fyi: i only have CDs, no vinyl . The 1987 STEREO mixes are strong IMO, definitely a snug & secure second place. Before that however, I gotta go with the 2009 mono (you never listen to She's Leaving Home the same again). From there the rest of the remixes/remasters are all a good third place. I'm just glad I own them all. 😂👍👍👍
Man I watch your videos a lot, and right now I am just hearing about that you are an Archaeologist; I'm an Anthropologist and History Professor but in the French/latín American scholarly tradition. Keep it up with your videos. And I would like to read some work of you
Thanks Gerardo! Congrats for your position! I am a near eastern archaeologist. If you search Guido Guarducci you should find some stuff.
Of all the Beatles remasters ever done The 2022 Revolver is the Best
What's wrong with the 2009s? I thought George did the definitive stereo mix then.
I have the Beatles blue album 1967-1970 on LP and the 1993 CD version. In 2010 (or 2011?) I bought the new 2010-version which they say is superb. I was disappointed, the CDs from 1993 sound better to me, so I keep listening to the old CDs. By the way, I hate the cheap cardboard CD cases. My CDs must not scratch or grind when I take them out and put them in. So I cut up cardboard cases and use them as inserts in proper plastic CD cases.
It's so sad. One would expect improvement over time and in hifi it is rarely the case
I dunno why the hate of the old simple stereo mixes....but my brain assembles that wide stereo pan to something that sounds great. I guess not everyone has that combine option in their brain stem. Maybe a firmware update is needed? Also..my brain has a 'digital' distortion limiter. That's why the new remix goes in the trash.
There are two issues people have with the original stereo mix
- The Beatles never intended the album for Stereo. The Stereo mix was a rush job made only because EMI required it
- The four track master limited what could be done in stereo, leading to a strange listening experience especially on headphones.
@@tuckertastictk exactly. The original stereo mixes have always sounded horrendous especially when listening on headphones - the 2022 mix fixes all the horrible hard panning issues. I totally understand why people love the mono mix - it’s sounds great. But the original 1966 stereo mix is awful, and the 2022 is far superior.
1987 mix is 16 bit 44,1 kHz, but the 2022 mix is 24 bit 96 kHz. You can also convert the 1987 mix to 24 bit, then convert again to 16 bit
It’s not a 1987 mix, it’s the original 1966 stereo mix. The original mix is on analog tape, it’s not limited to 44.1/16 only the digital transfer for cd is limited to that resolution.
Hi,are you italian? I've seen a video where you speak italian perfectly! 👍🏻
He speaks English perfectly too! Cool, init!
Yes, well mainly Italian, my mother was from the US.
@@anadialog ah ok,ho capito! Complimenti per il canale!👍🏻
Is it just me or do most audiophiles have mediocre sound? No matter what they have. I haven't been in dozens of audiophiles homes, but I have been in quite a few and except for one guy, whose sound I thought was real good; none of the others sounded anything like a musical experience. Some of them had power amplifiers that only a very strong person could lift. Priced in the 5 figure range. A lot of bass weight, but it sounded like it needed to lose some weight in order to be more nimble. Heft but no rhythm. Slow and bogged down sounding, which brought the whole experience down; and everything down with it in fact. Infinity and a select few other vintage speakers whose price was within reason, had seperate smaller midbass drivers, in addition to a larger big woofer. The midbass drivers were light enough to reproduce the fancy range without the midbass having the heavy ponderous quality of the lower bass, which the bigger woofer took care of.
Same goes with stores. Rarely have I seen elevated cables or much attention paid to vibration isolation. I would much rather hear a much less expensive tweaked and well set up system than what we usually get to hear in audio showrooms. I think there is a certain level of sound where magic begins, that once heard, many audiophiles strive to attain; but never do. It requires expert tonal matching, unusual performance, , great set up and attention to details, and the right room acoustic, which even if you know your stuff you really have to be lucky on.
Interesting point. I agree on the fact that high quality gear is only a part of the equation and it is subject to a restraint sound if not properly tuned together with the listening ambient.
@@anadialog Yes, I think the word tweak has with it, some connotation of the word slight, and maybe that's why people don't take tweaking their system seriously. You can more than double your sound quality with tweaking. It's rare when a piece of audio gear itself will give you an over 40% improvement. Usually when we make a fine upgrade, it is in the 15 to 25% range. So 4 or 5 times 40% is very substantial and not slight at all.
Have all The Beatles catalogue in AAD and the 2009 Remasters and I prefer the Remasters, just my two cents....
All opinions are welcome!
Level match them and get back to us.
Wasn't there a mix in 2009?
those were remasters...
@@4travisbickle Ohhh, so are these just original masters then? I see.
I went back to my '87 copy. I did not prefer it. I HATE the lazy, late panning of Paul's vocals on "Eleanor Rigby!" The 2009 CD was a bit better. I do not have the new remix, yet. My favorite mix of the couple of Revolver songs so far are on the 1999 "Yellow Submarine Songtrack," CD. That one included "Yellow Submarine," "Eleanor Rigby," and "Love You To." Those were really nice mixes.
That album fixed "Eleanor..." and added "a life of ease..." echo on the title track.
I agree 100%. The 1999 Yellow Submarine remixes are exceptional for all of tracks, the Revolver ones especially. We even get a hint of what a remixed Rubber Soul could sound like. Ahead of its time.
ADD is just overEQ - my question is is it possible to record this quality on machine you show in video, it seems that record machines was much more advanced in those days... I think.
I prefer the new mix. What strikes me the most is how well the original material was miced in the first place. Geo Martin and G Emerick did a fantastic job in 1966.
Theres plenty of good reviews on the Giles Martin Releases, in fact untill i seen this guy i wasn't aware of anyone being unhappy. unfortunately there is a anologue crowd that refuse to accept digital music, usually they are vinyl people and i suspect this guy is one of them.
You go you record archeologist!
I listened to the samples and I do prefer the AAD, much easier on the ears. No boosted compressed crap for me, thanks... Also, they changed a lot even the stereo image... Not cool.
I just bought this CD. I'm an AI/ML/Deep Learning Engineer and neural networks can learn very well how an artist sounds...we can then use these AIs for source separation. In signal processing this area is called Signal separation..and also lookup Cocktail party effect.
Yes, that is IF you have enough material to properly "teach" what is what...not always available
I loved the concept of this remix but I didn't feel it was executed well
I bought the vinyl box set everything but the remixed album sounded great
There was significant distortion on the inner grooves and for some strange reason the remix was very noisy everything else in the box set sounded fantastic the outtakes were awesome the mono album was great and the bonus 45 was okay but that remix was just too damn loud I was convinced that it was just a pressing issue with my particular copy so I went and bought the single remixed album again in hopes that the problem would be resolved but it was the same problem
I really wish the biggest band in the world would get audiophile quality pressings of their albums but for some reason they chose to release on subpar vinyl
I just can't get past the separation in the early stereo mixes. When it comes down to it, mono is and likely always will be the best way to listen to the Beatles.
Can we have a discussion of Telarc and their DDD Compact Discs going back for 4 decades! And question #2. This is why I don't buy modern re-masters unless they have special merit to them. Great videos. Keep them coming.
Love Telarc! Digital done the right way!
@@anadialog Do you have Telarc's DDD Papa Doo Run Run disc? It's a Beachboy cover disc that was absolutely hand crafted to redbook standard. The performers are not too shabby either. Very hard to find. I have two. Discogs might have some. You won't be sorry. It blows everyone away that I have demonstrated it to. The dynamic range is breathtaking. Be warned if you have your volume at 12 o'clock.
It would have been interesting to hear some comments about the 2009 remaster as well, how it compares to the 1987. Because the new one is a remix after all!
Yes, I understand but we were focusing on mixes.
The Dolby Atmos version of the remix is actually pretty good! The CD is pretty loud for my taste
Theres actually more if you count the two mono cds released in 2014 and 2022. Also you didn’t review the 2009 cd release…it’s different!
AAA.
The original 1987 CDs didn't have the Apple logo, it's the same master though... wait, why am I writing this? It actually sounds fine on any version, so who cares.
What counts is the mix, that is why I wrote 1987, because it's the same done by Martin for the first CD even though mine is a little later.
No such thing as the '1987 mix' of course, but there was a mastering of the original 1966 stereo master reel. I dont mean to be a pedant but it's a crucial difference between mix and mastering.
If you want to compare mixes compare the original stereo vs mono of Sgt. Pepper etc. I didn’t understand what a masterpiece this album was until I heard it properly in mono. I guess people are used to the fake stereo that the Beatles didn’t endorse. Oh well. George Martin remixed Rubber Soul and Help for the 1987 stereo CDs because he realized the issues that you’re used to.
Yup, I cherish a lot my mono boxset!
I clicked when i got the notification because i like this channel. Then i realised it was about the Beatles.... Hmmm, I don't know if it because i'm English but i cant stand the "Fab 4". They're a band for screaming teenage girls... they're the "Take That" or "BoyZone" of the 1960's. I think i'll sit this one out people.... Enjoy!
(there's no accounting for bad taste... LOL)
yeah no love for the Hollies.
That's shocking! ;-)
Now here is a bold but vile and certainly ignorant take on the Beatles. There must be Englishmen with good taste, but you're not one of them.
@@pedromarques7457 Correct, i'm certainly not "one of them". Johnny Rotten had the right idea. He sacked the first Bass player of the Sex Pistols for liking the Beatles and ABBA.
Isn't music wonderful in that we can enjoy individual taste?
I remember the Beatles shoot to fame. In the UK, it was mostly women that liked the Beatles while men preferred the Stones.... Not so in the US. That's probably why John Lennon move there.... to get away from the screaming teenage girls.
I have the 8 track XD
This is obvious that new remixes have been done for doing playlists for public places like shops or for radio broadcasts not to break with today's productions, even with the great job done with stereo 2009 remasters. I have the mono box and I think this is the best way to listen to The Beatles but most people will think it's like watching TV in B/W. This is a kind of a relay for new generations to hear the Beatles in better conditions. Purists won't be happy with this. The band is great but even if G. Martin made a revolution in recording techniques, they evolved at the wrong era. Maybe today's music lacks of real melodies and need much simple studio effects that doesn't give public's confidence in artists' performances.
Audio enthusiasts should learn how to modify. Audiophiles who know what they are doing can remove the dinner dishes from their table, replace them with an audio component whose top is off and ready for some internal work and before the suds in the sink go away can make their sound go from AAA to AAAA.
Your sound starts coming from the ceiling. Don't bother to strain your neck looking up. The sound will come right down to you. You can hear the sound the stylus makes riding the groove. Not from surface noise either. The sound keeps getting better and better, which mean the limit of the cds, lps and tapes haven't been reached yet. Something tells me maybe it doesn't even work that way. I can't imagine improving something and not getting an improvement in sound back. Fun hobby!
I think the 2009 Mono remaster sounds best.
I owned both and liked the newer one better. Just one person’s opinion.
Whilst I like the sound of un-hyper compressed/limited AAD CDs, personally I 'd rather listen to the new [better] mixes of Revolver in ADD, than the old mixes in AAD. In a perfect world Giles Martin would not have mastered the new release as hot as he did, but I think he hasn't pushed the loudness as far as he could have, which can only be a good thing. But here's a question...why do you think bands and/or record companies don't release their 24 bit versions in quieter mastering? Why do they push out 24 bit versions with the same master as the 16 bit? Surely to make the most of a 24 bit 'audiophile' listening experience, you would have thought they'd put out more dynamic versions of the songs? It's got the point that one just can't appreciate a 24 bit recording over a 16 bit recording, because the hyper compression acts against any improvement that could have been heard IMO.
Because it is time consuming and expensive. They do one mix and slightly different masters, in some cases the same master is just reduced in resolution and sampling rate to fit the various inferior formats
Master tapes have a dynamic range of around 13-14 bits, 16 is more than enough