This of course is not a good thing. The one thing CD's can do well is dynamic range, but lately many CD's are all about being loud. Ultimately this will help kill the CD market and further deaden peoples senses, so they can be happy with horrible compressed audio (MP3, etc.). As far as the bass, I think I could have tweaked in a little bottom if I thought it was missing. I do not understand the whole mono thing (the new releases are available in both stereo and mono). These recordings for the most part were originally stereo, so what's with mono? I want more channels, not less.
My listening tests compared the new CD's with the old ones as well as with vinyl and some oddball Beatles releases like a 20 bit HDCD of Let it Be (Naked) and the Love DVD-Audio (remixed by Sir George Martin and son). As you may know, I am quite the audio snob, with some serious listening gear (electrostatic speakers, tube amps, etc.). I am also a long time Beatles fan - I have purchased pretty much the whole cycle at least two or three times.
So I would be lying if I said I didn't want these new CD's to sound great and jump out of my speakers like the Stones and Kinks and many other old rock groups' high resolution remixes. The regular 16 bit CD's can sound very good too. I wanted these to be good. But they don't offer any improvement for me. In fact, although I may change my mind after more listening, for now I prefer the old CD releases over these new ones.
I did not do any empirical analysis of the new versions of any of the tracks (maybe I could suck them into Sound Forge and measure the dynamic range - for now I used my ears). I also have a strong prejudice in favor of vinyl. Nine times out of ten the listening experience from vinyl (even somewhat worn) beats CD's, HDCD's, SACD's and DVD-Audio. It doesn't matter which digital media is used, vinyl is almost always significantly better. Remember, the resolution of analog signals is continuous, so it has infinitely higher resolution than anything digital. The best digital sound comes from DSD (SACD), but it's still not analog.
I imagine a lot of people will disagree with me, but time will tell as other audiophiles weigh in on the subject. I am sorry if I sounded harsh, I am just trying to steer you readers towards the best sound.
If you have the vinyl, play that, and enjoy the best there is. If you have the old CD's, you don't need the new ones. If you have neither, you can get the new (and hardly improved) ones or seek out old versions. Have they inadvertently created a new market for the vintage Beatles CD releases? Wouldn't that be something.
I don't know anything about sound. But I think The Beatles deserves the best sound, for their legacy and for the sake of next generations.
ReplyDeleteThe way you put it, sounds very reasonable and seems to be the opinion of many other, so I believe you. Good review.
um...pretty worthless in factual accuracy - and i mean that without being some kind of litigious cretin. but...the beatles were not originally recording in stereo, as you falsely claim. up until abbey road the band was intensely, personally involved with the mono mixes. stereo was considered to be a fad of the time, and given this impression they weren't even present during the stereo mixes. despite how many channels you're pining for, the beatles were meant to be heard in mono, and in some cases (such as the songs on sgt. pepper) the arrangements and instruments heard are entirely different on each respective mix. since this music was made in mono, it was mixed with a certain "ass" or potency that is removed when the instruments are spaced into different channels. in the case of "she's leaving home" the stereo mix is slowed down and sounds clumsy, like molasses (when compared to the mono mix). "lucy in the sky" sounds entirely different and less small-town-fair than the stereo. "pepper" is almost an entirely different experience in mono than it is in stereo, and i would say the latter is infinitely less expressive and impressive, not to mention less representative of what they were trying to accomplish than the mono. "revolver" sounds horribly thin and fractured in its stereo mix, and once again in the mono mix more instrumental details are perceptible -- cowbell in "taxman," the flatlining organ drone in "tomorrow never knows," and "i'm only sleeping" has additional backwards guitar effects in the mono that are not represented on the stereo (even the remastered stereo...which i fail to understand). perhaps it's an act of frivolity to isolate and champion these relatively minor differences, but in the case of the beatles the old axiom is true that god is in the details. simply put, the four bandmates (and george martin) worked unceasingly on the mono mixes, and this is ultimately how the band is meant to be heard. studio engineers are the ones who halphazardly slapped together the stereo mixes. personally, if i spent 7 months working on an album and mixing it down, the version i would want people to hear would be precisely that, the way it was meant to be heard. why they're releasing the stereo is beyond me, but the mono mixes are necessary. it's an absolute shame that they didn't individually release the mono remasters so people could hear the beatles as the band that they were, but i guess capitalism and the avarice of issuing "limited edition" boxsets that gouge the consumer win out, ultimately. you can find mono downloads online that have been transfered directly from the original vinyl, and from all the mixes and formats i've heard, it's the next best thing to hearing the vinyl directly.
ReplyDelete