PDA

View Full Version : BBR:"24-Bit Remasters Series"


joelcrowservo
Jul 04, 2003, 10:49 PM
Okay, heres this weeks installment, see if its to your liking...
The Beatles-24 Bit Remasters:"Please Please Me";"With the Beatles";"A Hard Days Night";"Beatles For Sale"
http://capitolrecords.com/beatles/images/harddays.jpg
Okay, first up, this information: Yes, I'm aware that even though these are '24 Bit", the CD-Rs themselves are of course 16 bit. But having 24 bit remastering helps immensely. The normal Beatles CDs are 16 bit mastering, 16 bit CDs. And bad. But are THESE any good? Well as with everything in Beatleg land, you get the good and the bad. I'll tell ya which is which.
I dunno where these CDs come from (i.e., company wise,Dr Ebbets maybe?) or who did the actual remastering. Or HOW its done for that matter. One things obvious. Each CD is mastered from varying sources, its not as though they took a mint vinyl LP and went from there. Which wouldnt be bad, but..any way...First up, "Please Please Me". I assumed this would be the worst of the bunch, with its 2 track limitaions, most feel it better suited to mono. Then I hear "I Saw Her Standing There". Its very, very good. Ringos snare drum actually cracks, like a good snare sound should. You can hear most every detail. And most tracks sound as good, they BREATHE, if you get me. The only sour note hit is "Love Me Do". The stereo is done by synching the two mono versions. Now, the first blast of stereo harmonica is stunning, then it falls apart, because no one seemed to realize both mixes are varying tempos. So it sounds pretty crappy.
"With The Beatles" starts off with "It Wont Be Long", and thsi best illustrates how each album is done from differnt sources depending on the track. It just sounds FLAT. This did not bode well for the rest of the CD, but then comes an unbeleivably warm "All My Loving" and "Till There Was You". Most of the remasters sound like good vinyl, and thats as it should be without total remixing.
"A Hard Days Night". Stereo. Thats all I should have to say here, but whoever did these pays attention to little details. Like with "I Should Have Known Better". The original 'broken' harmonica intro is used, as it should have been. Why someone at Capitol always assumed that harmonica break was a tape screw up or an accident, I dont know, since John is plainly taking a breath there. Again, warm is the word, with stuff like "And I Love Her" sounding especially nice. But this can also be a problem too. As with the entire "Rubber Soul" CD, there is such a thing as TOO warm, which seems to be due more to re-EQing than remastering. These are two different things, kids. But the vocals have a real depth and life to them, which cant be said for the Capitol CDs.
"Beatles For Sale" may be the winner of the bunch actually. The stereo is natural sounding, the echo just right. I prefer the stereo "BFS" anyway, so its nice to have the whole thing on CD. Georges guitar,especially, sounds like hes picking the notes right next to you at times. The one thing I have noticed is that Ringos ride cymbal, on all the CDs, is a little less sharp than usual. So if thats my only complaint, then geez.
SUMMARY/RATING: As a whole,4 1/2 Stars.
Whomever is responsible, the 24 bit remasters of the Fabs first four LPs is a wonderful start in the right direction. If you cant stand the mono Capitol/EMI Cds, then you NEED these, since it doesnt look as though the real deal will happen any time soon. Mint Vinyl quality, and thats a high compliment from me!
***************************
Next time...back to where we started, almost, with "The Best of The White Album Sessions".
Now, your questions and reviews. Legs will begin, I believe... images/icons/wink.gif

Legs
Jul 05, 2003, 12:34 AM
Originally Posted By joelcrowservo:
Legs will begin, I believe... images/icons/wink.gif <font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">How did you know? images/icons/wink.gif But I am sorry the 4 mono cd-s sounds good enough to me and I don't really want to buy the same album twice. Also these albums are officially released so my policy is to just by the official stuff.

Right this will leave room for discussions I hope.

joelcrowservo
Jul 05, 2003, 01:00 AM
Originally Posted By Legs:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Originally Posted By joelcrowservo:
Legs will begin, I believe... images/icons/wink.gif <font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">How did you know? images/icons/wink.gif But I am sorry the 4 mono cd-s sounds good enough to me and I don't really want to buy the same album twice. Also these albums are officially released so my policy is to just by the official stuff.

Right this will leave room for discussions I hope.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Yes, I would generally agree. If I want a Beatles (or anybodys) CD, I'll buy it. But the stereo versions were just too good to pass up, for me anyway. And when Apple decides to release true stereo first 4, I'll buy those too. I was just so dissapointed in the transfers of the original 4, and it seems George Martin was as well. OK, back to true 'Beatlegs' next time!

Doctor Kite
Jul 05, 2003, 04:05 PM
These sound pretty interesting but how do you know that they are 24-bit remasters if you don't know who made them? Is it just that easy to tell by the sound? Also how long have these been around?

joelcrowservo
Jul 05, 2003, 10:00 PM
I'm not sure exactly how long theyve been around, about a year I believe. And yes, you can tell the difference. Otherwise I'd have said "these sound just like the normal CDs!".;)The music BREATHES a bit on these, theyre more open. 24 bit mastering allows for this. Give me a bit and I'll post on the basic differences between 16, 20 and 24 bit mastering for digital.

onosideboards
Jul 07, 2003, 10:38 AM
i have a dumb question...what does 16-bit and 24-bit mean? just recording at a higer frequency/sampling rate? what's the difference between this terminology and, say, video game systems (8-bit NES, 16-bit superNES, etc.)? and how is 24-bit different from stereo?

sorry for being off topic!

i don't really care about remixing songs/albums mono to stereo & vise versa either. i honestly can BARELY tell the difference. maybe i just have a sucky stereo or poor hearing, i dunno. i am expecting dr. ebbet's white album mono just cuz everyone raves so much about the mono white album. maybe i'll review that with my tainted ears...

onosideboards
Jul 07, 2003, 04:50 PM
thanks joel. i guess i did already get the gist of it, but your details helped fill some gaps in my meagar knowledge images/icons/smile.gif

joelcrowservo
Jul 07, 2003, 08:10 PM
Originally Posted By Legs:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Originally Posted By joelcrowservo:
We can do a nice 'stereo vs mono' breakdown sometime I suppose..That might be fun, whaddya say Legs?<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Alright that sound like something to do one time, but I am not sure wheter to do it here or on the "And Your Bird Can Sing" forum.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Yes, I thought the same thing after I posted that. It may well fit better in "Bird", butall our talk about minor details mainly found these days by way of bootleg would seem better here..well,what do you moderators think?

joelcrowservo
Jul 07, 2003, 11:27 PM
No, this is not really off topic at all. Its actually very interesting. Lets see if this explanation helps at all:
The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate.
In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.
A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion.
This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise.
CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling.
The recording industry has a new standard for DVD audio discs that will greatly improve the sound quality. . DVDs can hold 74 minutes of music at their highest quality level. CDs can also hold 74 minutes of music. By lowering either the sampling rate or the accuracy, DVDs can hold more music. For instance a DVD can hold almost 7 hours of CD quality audio. So basically it comes to this:a CD uses 2 bytes, or 16 bits, per sample. For a more accurate sample, you would use more byts, or bits, leading to 20 and 24 bit sampling.Most CD burners on computers, as well as basic home digiatl editors, use 16 bits, basically as a space saving measure. But whomever did these 24 bit remasters, what I think they did, is use different digital filters on what they had, different EQs, and then for a more accurate representation of the basic WAV, transferred it to 24 bit.
There, everythings clearer now...
graemlins/afraid2.gif
And as far as stereo vs mono, no in most cases theres not a heck of a difference. But with the white album, there is. But again, some people just dont hear it. Its all in the details, mostly. We can do a nice 'stereo vs mono' breakdown sometime I suppose..That might be fun, whaddya say Legs?

[ Jul 07, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message Edited By: joelcrowservo ]

Legs
Jul 07, 2003, 11:38 PM
Originally Posted By joelcrowservo:
We can do a nice 'stereo vs mono' breakdown sometime I suppose..That might be fun, whaddya say Legs?<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Alright that sound like something to do one time, but I am not sure wheter to do it here or on the "And Your Bird Can Sing" forum.

onosideboards
Jul 08, 2003, 09:48 AM
um, FPSHOT is the only moderator who has not commented on the sitation, joel images/icons/smile.gif

personally i think it should remain in the bootleg forum. hmm, but then again you can get the different versions on old LPs. but the discussion may lead people to want a CD of the different versions which would be a bootleg. yes, this is a dilema.

Legs
Jul 08, 2003, 09:52 AM
Oh let's not think about it to long, just do it here for the reasons you two have stated.All the different versions and mixes from the old lp's are now the easiest to find on bootlegs.

joelcrowservo
Jul 08, 2003, 10:15 PM
Yes, I agree with all. If someone did want, say, the mono Pepper, you'd have to get a boot. So lets keep it in the boot! If no one else wants to start what will I guess amount to a guide for mono and stereo differences, then give me a day or so to think. I'm sure ones I dont know, Legs or Rob or someone will know. This ought to be interesting!