What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
52 Comments
- Starbond, on 11/04/2009, -2/+25It's just amazing that a band who was only around for 10 years (1960-1970) was able to produce groundbreaking music and pioneer new recording techniques in that time, and most of it occurred from 1965-1970, so more like 5 years. The Beatles rock!
- homer524, on 11/04/2009, -2/+20Are those the guys from rockband?
- ParticleMan420, on 11/04/2009, -1/+12As an engineer, i like remasters. I believe the music should sound the best it possibly can, even if it takes 40 years for technology to catch up. Creating remasters doesnt automatically erase your old tapes and scratch your old records so the original is still there for you to enjoy, there just happens to be more versions of it now. Much like the original MONO mixes and the original STEREO mixes. which of those is the "original"? should they have not made the stereo versions?
it's elitist audiophiles (snobs) that i hate most about the music industry. If the only way to hear something properly is thru an audio system that no one but 4 people has and the only people that can tell the difference are those 4 people, then what's the point? - Mujokan, on 11/04/2009, -1/+9"We were obviously aware of the Loudness Wars — squashing, brickwalling, all that sort of stuff — and we didn’t want to do that. We wanted to retain the original dynamics. So for the loudest part of the loudest songs, there may be limiting of 3 to 4 dB, but for most of the songs, most of the time, there isn’t any limiting."
That was basically all I wanted to know. - jiggawatt, on 11/04/2009, -0/+8As an amature engineer and audiophile, I hope you guys aren't following the industry trend of compressing the hell out of everything. What I love most about a lot of old recordings is the dynamic range, which sounds BETTER on a good system, or pair of headphones. It has more depth, it puts you more inside the music, it even sounds more live. Just wanted to put in my 2 cents. Mild compression is alright on on some lines, but the levels should be set to hit the peak at it's worse, without the aid of heavy compression. I'm so tired of recordings being trashed by destroying the dynamic range.
- inactive, on 11/04/2009, -4/+9What does it matter, all the hack music "fans" will still be listening to it on 5 dollar iphone earbuds.
- mywhitenoise, on 11/04/2009, -2/+7The pops, crackles, hums, and other defects weren't how the albums were originally recorded...you dumbass.
What you receive (be it vinyl, casette, CD, DVD-A) is a representation of the original recording. SACD and DVD-A hi-resolution are currently the most accurate representation of what the producer and band heard while in the studio. - Stupidtourist, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5On CD? The core catalog has only been re-mastered once. Before 9/9/09 the albums in stores were exactly the same as the 1987 discs, which were hit and miss. The first four original discs were rushed, mono mixes only (and mastered on a stereo tape machine). The packaging was pretty lame up through "Revolver".
If anything these remasters were long overdue. They should have come out in the late 90's, right on the heels of the "Anthology" projects. - ParticleMan420, on 11/04/2009, -3/+7thats nice for you, what about everyone else?
- ParticleMan420, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4like i said, it's all still there for you to hear. creating different versions doesnt make them go away.
- jeriqo, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Which ones?
- mywhitenoise, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4I think twice.
- jeriqo, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3And for those who don't know, 4dB is quite small.
I'm pretty sure McCartney's latest albums have at least 18dB limiting. - leamanc, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Up until Sgt. Pepper's in 1967, the "official" Beatles albums (UK releases on Parlophone) were chopped up, re-arranged and butchered to make more LPs in the USA (on Capitol).
Since the first Beatles CDs in 1987, the world has standardized on the official UK releases. However, the Capitol albums were remastered/reissued in box sets a few years ago.
Not sure if they are ignoring the Capitol remasters because they sucked, or if they just refuse to acknowledge the Capitol albums, period. - pathouston22, on 11/04/2009, -4/+7"complete with pops, crackles, hum and any other defects."
And why do you want defects in your music? Do you want defects in your car you buy? Or a house?
If the defects were placed there on purpose, then it' part of the art. But if they are there due to technological limitations at the time, then that just degrades the art. - hkrob, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2What does your soundcard connect to?
- Idiggapony, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2No, that didn't happen.
- ephemeral, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Hey Jude.
- diggopolous, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3Hhmmm I must of paid for Sgt. Pepper's 4 times: the first as a vinyl album, the second as a replacement when it got scratched. the third when it was released on cd, the fourth was this remastered CD, and I anticipate a fifth time if/when they release it on HDCD(which they should have done this time).
- ParticleMan420, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4Why is that lame?
- jiggawatt, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2I couldn't agree more with your stance towards the destruction of the dynamic range
- kevro, on 11/04/2009, -7/+8I have The Beatles on vinyl from the original release dates and they sound just fine.
- ketha, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Twice.
But, you know, I can't disagree with the premise here. Although what are they supposed to do, give it away to charity? - ParticleMan420, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2according to the article, 1 other time (as a whole) with a few various one's scattered (help dvd, yellow submarine dvd, etc)
- Stupidtourist, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Most of the albums were re-arranged for the American market based on how royalties were calculated in the US compared to the UK. It wasn't until Sgt. Pepper that Capitol issued an album that was identical to the British album.
- darkfate, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3It's in the music category, which isn't that big. If it happened quickly, then it could have gotten promoted. Also, a lot of people don't like to comment. There's also not much to comment about other than "Awesome."
- sahaskatta, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1High Res Beatles Album Art:
http://skattertech.com/2009/09/the-beatles-high-re ...
No spam, just one zip of JPEGs, enjoy! :) - JackSpratts, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2taking their first outing please please me as a starting point, the good news is 1963’s famous 1-day studio wonder hasn’t been infected with the dreaded modern loudness disease but it does suffer from volume related compression/limiting which to these ears is not subtle. of course the point of the remastering was to restore the original mixes without enhancement, but they could have moved away from emi's hard limiting of the vocals and gain riding of the instruments around those vocals. otherwise known as pumping, it's unfortunately audible from the first track to the last, with the wonderful exception of "ask me why," which is essentially free from dynamic range compromise and stands out from the rest because of it.
this is a clean album, particularly for its age, but if this first stereo disc is a guide to the set then legitimate questions can be asked about aesthetic and technical choices made over the four year course of the project. - milwaukeesbeast, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3yes im sure when they were playing the music while it was recorded the original sound included those pops and crackles.
and what is this ***** about removing nasty bits of history? we are talking about music and how we have better technology now than before just shut the ***** up. - ParticleMan420, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2it would be a scheme if it wasnt a completely different version than the last release. And how dare the people that created something be able to make money off of it! those scheming scumbags!
- goxkok, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1dont make it bad
- spudnbuds, on 11/04/2009, -0/+0
- pathouston22, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1Do you insult every person you respond to?
You should get out of your studio and socially interact in person, it would help. - consonance, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1What are these Capitol remasters that the engineers refused to mention? What's the deal there?
- borez, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1They said in the article that they weren't really limiting the tracks so no, they won't have compressed the hell out of them.
Thank *****. - borez, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1What are you on about, I answered his question. No... they're not going to brickwall the masters, like it says in the article.
- mywhitenoise, on 11/04/2009, -2/+1Dumbest comment I've ever read.
- zubi, on 11/04/2009, -3/+2because 200 years from now those songs still won't be in public domain, and they will still be bleeding money out of our veins for the same songs. Everyone does it. I don't care if i get down voted but it's the truth and i'm not going to fall for this scheme.
- OnipSemaj, on 11/04/2009, -2/+1I went out and bought nearly all of the remasters, and you know what? They sound good, but they're nearly identical to the sound of the '87 CDs (most of which I still have). The main thing I noticed is that the remasters are a bit louder, but there is no obvious improvement in sound quality. You have to remember that even though they are mastered at 24-bit/192 kHz, they are still downsampled to 16-bit/44.1 kHz for CD. Hence, there is virtually no improvement over the original CD releases.
I would be impressed if they remastered them onto SACD, then you could truly listen to the 24-bit quality and you would definitely hear a difference. - zubi, on 11/04/2009, -11/+9The real reason for the remaster is that now they can hold onto the rights to the music that much longer. f***ing lame.
- DiggCommando, on 11/04/2009, -4/+1I'll take vinyl over digital any day, and I have a studio quality (Lynx L22) sound card on my music centric HTPC...
- borez, on 11/04/2009, -8/+4Wat! The pops crackles and hums were 100% part of how it was recorded. Tape hiss, tape wow, machine hum, not using a pop shield because nobody had invented them, etc. etc. etc.
Dumbass. - borez, on 11/04/2009, -9/+4What he ***** are you on about, we're not talking about a ***** car or a house purchase. It's part of the original sound you turnip. The whole recording process reflects the time, the era and the technology... why the ***** would you want to remove that.
If you want to think on that level, then why don't we remove all the nasty bits of history and just leave in the good stuff. - thejackyl, on 11/04/2009, -8/+3Those albums sounded fine the way they were.
- npcabral, on 11/04/2009, -9/+4I love the beatles. Really. Digg is broken however. No comments. Under 70 diggs... front page.
- alistairlp, on 11/04/2009, -7/+1Waste of money too - what's the point in paying for the same album twice?
- borez, on 11/04/2009, -12/+6As a studio engineer, I don't like remasters. I believe ( especially with the likes of the Beatles ) the music should stay the way it was recorded, complete with pops, crackles, hum and any other defects. Putting the original Beatle recording into Pro Tools for a revamp is tantamount to sacrilege in my book, no matter how good the AD converters are. I mean it's good that they haven't brick walled the mastering, but still... what's the point of this whole exercise apart from selling a few more records.
I'm really surprised the guy's at Abbey Road actually took this project on to be honest. - neutron7, on 11/04/2009, -8/+1Paul in studio. Paul says make Paul louder. now the songs sound like crap.
- borez, on 11/04/2009, -9/+1Well that's your choice, but I myself prefer to hear all the defects, it's a reflection of the recording limits of the time, the history of the production.
- inactive, on 11/04/2009, -10/+2Drugs.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is