In terms of how it sounds on your hi-fi which album of theirs is it? My favourite Beatles album, based on the music alone, is either Rubber Soul or Revolver. But to my ears, the best sounding is Abbey Road. Last year's remastered version seems to be on a whole new level, sonically. The dynamic range is, for one of their records, immense. The detail and the warmth are all there in abundance. Is it a given that this, by virtue of it being the last they recorded, would sound the best? As in, it would have utilized the most advanced technology to date, during it's playing/recording/mastering/pressing? Or did that process not alter that much from 63's Please, Please, Me up to 1970? Answers/thoughts anyone?
Best sounding Beatles album?
- Thread starter Charlie Jefferson
- Start date
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
As far as I'm concerned, I really don't care how they sound, the music is more important. I grew up with my parents playing their albums frequently - I still have them, and they're in a real sorry state. That said, I could still happily play them and enjoy them.
Having said that, I was going to buy the mono set, but wondered whether I'd be better off with getting hold of some re-issued vinyl instead.
Having said that, I was going to buy the mono set, but wondered whether I'd be better off with getting hold of some re-issued vinyl instead.
Alantiggger
Well-known member
I cannot remember now what the album was called... my older brother bought it a lot of years ago now but at the time it had all the songs on it that I thought were superb ........ the cover showed an apple. (it was brilliant, I thought)
If you're talking about vinyl, this isn't easy to answer since most of their stuff was recorded in mono and only the last couple of albums are stereo. Where stereo and mono was available, the sound quality was different.
The problem also is that their albums sold many millions of copies, which mean several masters had to be used, they were often played on rubbish gear where tracking weight was often achieved by putting coins on top of head of the arm. The odds of finding a pristine original pressing from early in the first run is remote, as prices for these gems attest.
As to the remastering, they are a modern-day interpretation of how people to-day thought the music should have sounded back then, so if best-sounding means closest to what happened in the recording studio, then they probably aren't so good. The original CDs came up to twenty years after the original records, and used stereo mixes, some of indifferent quality.
None of which matters, because as David of FHHF says, the music is more important than the sound quality.
The problem also is that their albums sold many millions of copies, which mean several masters had to be used, they were often played on rubbish gear where tracking weight was often achieved by putting coins on top of head of the arm. The odds of finding a pristine original pressing from early in the first run is remote, as prices for these gems attest.
As to the remastering, they are a modern-day interpretation of how people to-day thought the music should have sounded back then, so if best-sounding means closest to what happened in the recording studio, then they probably aren't so good. The original CDs came up to twenty years after the original records, and used stereo mixes, some of indifferent quality.
None of which matters, because as David of FHHF says, the music is more important than the sound quality.
Grottyash:
If you're talking about vinyl, this isn't easy to answer since most of their stuff was recorded in mono and only the last couple of albums are stereo. Where stereo and mono was available, the sound quality was different.
The problem also is that their albums sold many millions of copies, which mean several masters had to be used, they were often played on rubbish gear where tracking weight was often achieved by putting coins on top of head of the arm. The odds of finding a pristine original pressing from early in the first run is remote, as prices for these gems attest.
As to the remastering, they are a modern-day interpretation of how people to-day thought the music should have sounded back then, so if best-sounding means closest to what happened in the recording studio, then they probably aren't so good. The original CDs came up to twenty years after the original records, and used stereo mixes, some of indifferent quality.
None of which matters, because as David of FHHF says, the music is more important than the sound quality.
I have the Mono box set, and I really enjoy listening to it. There's also the "authenticity" factor of these contemporaneously being the versions most people would hear, at least until stereo took hold.
Yes, of course, it's all about the music first and foremost, but I was just intrigued to know what other people thought of the relative merits of the numerous editions of The Beatles canon.
I should add that I've got most of the 1987 CDs, the 1978(?) " Blue Box" set of vinyl, several digitally remastered vinyl cuts, the Mono Box and most of the stereo remasters from 2009, and a couple of 1960's pressings too. I have yet to hear any of the MSFL or is it Sound Lab pressings, but I'm nerdishly anticipating any future Blu-ray or new vinyl editions. So it is in this context that I'm interested in how they compare sonically.
If you're talking about vinyl, this isn't easy to answer since most of their stuff was recorded in mono and only the last couple of albums are stereo. Where stereo and mono was available, the sound quality was different.
The problem also is that their albums sold many millions of copies, which mean several masters had to be used, they were often played on rubbish gear where tracking weight was often achieved by putting coins on top of head of the arm. The odds of finding a pristine original pressing from early in the first run is remote, as prices for these gems attest.
As to the remastering, they are a modern-day interpretation of how people to-day thought the music should have sounded back then, so if best-sounding means closest to what happened in the recording studio, then they probably aren't so good. The original CDs came up to twenty years after the original records, and used stereo mixes, some of indifferent quality.
None of which matters, because as David of FHHF says, the music is more important than the sound quality.
I have the Mono box set, and I really enjoy listening to it. There's also the "authenticity" factor of these contemporaneously being the versions most people would hear, at least until stereo took hold.
Yes, of course, it's all about the music first and foremost, but I was just intrigued to know what other people thought of the relative merits of the numerous editions of The Beatles canon.
I should add that I've got most of the 1987 CDs, the 1978(?) " Blue Box" set of vinyl, several digitally remastered vinyl cuts, the Mono Box and most of the stereo remasters from 2009, and a couple of 1960's pressings too. I have yet to hear any of the MSFL or is it Sound Lab pressings, but I'm nerdishly anticipating any future Blu-ray or new vinyl editions. So it is in this context that I'm interested in how they compare sonically.
Clare Newsome:The Mobile Fidelity pressing of Abbey Road is great
Great price too, I believe. But yes, I'd like to hear that one.
Great price too, I believe. But yes, I'd like to hear that one.
My OH has had it for ages - didn't pay a fortune for it at the time. Its cost per play by now must be miniscule...
The heavyweight vinyl version of Let it Be...Naked is pretty slick, too
The heavyweight vinyl version of Let it Be...Naked is pretty slick, too
Sorreltiger
Well-known member
I know it's a completely left field vote, but I find the multi-channel DVD-A 'Love' album, remixed for Cirque de Soleil by Sir George Martin's son, Giles, very exciting! Just two of the highlights that I love are the way the fairground sounds in Mr Kite swirl round the room and being in the middle of the string quartet in Eleanor Rigby.
I was lucky enough to see The Beatles - Love for the second time last month. Best Cirque du Soleil show i've seen (even better than Viva Elvis
). If you ever get the chance to see it, grab it. Awesome performance with brilliant sound (including seat-back speakers for added atmospherics!)
First time at The Beatles - Love for me in January, but have to say I (marginally) preferred Viva Elvis. Still, both are brilliant, and as Clare says well worth seeing if you get the chance.
fatboyslimfast
Well-known member
FrankHarveyHiFi:Having said that, I was going to buy the mono set, but wondered whether I'd be better off with getting hold of some re-issued vinyl instead.
Watch out for the "direct metal mastered from digital tape" re-issues. They really aren't that good. I have a few (Please Please Me, Revolver and Yellow Submarine) that I bought before I understood what had happened to them, and they are no better than the original CDs.
I have original 60s vinyl copies that although a little scratched, blow away the re-issues.
The best cost compromise is the 2009 CD remasters. Nearly as good as a clean 60s vinyl issue.
Now if they were to release the 2009 remasters on vinyl, that would be a whole different story
Watch out for the "direct metal mastered from digital tape" re-issues. They really aren't that good. I have a few (Please Please Me, Revolver and Yellow Submarine) that I bought before I understood what had happened to them, and they are no better than the original CDs.
I have original 60s vinyl copies that although a little scratched, blow away the re-issues.
The best cost compromise is the 2009 CD remasters. Nearly as good as a clean 60s vinyl issue.
Now if they were to release the 2009 remasters on vinyl, that would be a whole different story
What a great question
I've heard so many versions of these albums - early vinyl pressings my Dad owns, the MFSL vinyl box set, mono and stereo remasters (both the 90s and more recent release of each) and the early CD releases.
The MFSL LPs are my favourite of any available releases though they were said to favour a slightly "smiley face EQ" in which lower and higher frequencies were emphasised a bit (which does make other releases sound a little "flat" by comparison though these of course will be more accurate to the original recordings). As such the recent CD stereo/mono remasters are probably the most faithful to the original recordings with early vinyl pressings in mint/near mint condition being a good choice if you have deeper pockets (or indeed one of the many Sgt Pepper audiophile lps including one from Nimbus Records as part of a magazine promo which is incredible).
At the end of the day, it is all about the music. A great sounding release of a favourite album or track just makes my hair stand on end when I hear a section that sounds better than I've never heard it before. After all, getting more enjoyment from music is what makes improving your hi-fi such a joy in the first place and listening to something you love that sounds better and better every time is a great reward for the time and care you take in selecting and matching different components.
In terms of which album sounds better anyway (all other things being equal), I think Abbey Road takes some beating simply as it is one of the later releases and benefits from more modern recording techniques. Sgt Pepper comes in a close second for me.
I've heard so many versions of these albums - early vinyl pressings my Dad owns, the MFSL vinyl box set, mono and stereo remasters (both the 90s and more recent release of each) and the early CD releases.
The MFSL LPs are my favourite of any available releases though they were said to favour a slightly "smiley face EQ" in which lower and higher frequencies were emphasised a bit (which does make other releases sound a little "flat" by comparison though these of course will be more accurate to the original recordings). As such the recent CD stereo/mono remasters are probably the most faithful to the original recordings with early vinyl pressings in mint/near mint condition being a good choice if you have deeper pockets (or indeed one of the many Sgt Pepper audiophile lps including one from Nimbus Records as part of a magazine promo which is incredible).
At the end of the day, it is all about the music. A great sounding release of a favourite album or track just makes my hair stand on end when I hear a section that sounds better than I've never heard it before. After all, getting more enjoyment from music is what makes improving your hi-fi such a joy in the first place and listening to something you love that sounds better and better every time is a great reward for the time and care you take in selecting and matching different components.
In terms of which album sounds better anyway (all other things being equal), I think Abbey Road takes some beating simply as it is one of the later releases and benefits from more modern recording techniques. Sgt Pepper comes in a close second for me.
Sorreltiger:I know it's a completely left field vote, but I find the multi-channel DVD-A 'Love' album, remixed for Cirque de Soleil by Sir George Martin's son, Giles, very exciting!
Not so left field - I was about to suggest the same thing.
The reason this sounds best, and why to me the full LP reissues were slightly disappointing, is that for the remix they went back to the original multi-track tapes and brought out elements of the mix previously hard to hear. The LP reissues, as I understand it, use the final two-channel mixes as done in the 1960s. Worse, they add the dreaded 'loudness' compression business (which I don't really understand, but can hear).
I was listening to a cheap 1970s pressing of Beatles For Sale the other day and it sounded good enough to me!
Not so left field - I was about to suggest the same thing.
The reason this sounds best, and why to me the full LP reissues were slightly disappointing, is that for the remix they went back to the original multi-track tapes and brought out elements of the mix previously hard to hear. The LP reissues, as I understand it, use the final two-channel mixes as done in the 1960s. Worse, they add the dreaded 'loudness' compression business (which I don't really understand, but can hear).
I was listening to a cheap 1970s pressing of Beatles For Sale the other day and it sounded good enough to me!
I'd agree Abbey Road is their best sounding album. If you can find an original vinyl, the opening track, "Come Together" is a great test for any HiFi.
Also notable for Ringo's only recorded drum solo - and what a solo it is. Not flashy, but oh so tight!
Also notable for Ringo's only recorded drum solo - and what a solo it is. Not flashy, but oh so tight!
fatboyslimfast
Well-known member
AFAIK, the stereo remasters had compression added sparingly (in contrast to the original CD releases of 1987 that had it in spades), but the mono mixes had none.
Interesting article... http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?11248-Beatles-remastering-process-info
Interesting article... http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?11248-Beatles-remastering-process-info
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram