The Beatles - vinyl from digital "masters"
- Thread starter rbbert
- Start date
No I'm annoyed that the idiots are using a digital file for the analog release!
Sheer BS and laziness on their part. One pass of the tape and they have a digital copy vs. maybe a couple of passes to cut the masters (assuming that the screw up a couple of lacquers). Everything in the future will be from this digital copy and kiss goodbye to any Beatles pure analog release ever again. Dopes.
I think it's been pretty well established that for both political (i.e., agreement among the 4 principals) and physical (reluctance to play the analog masters even once more) reasons those analog masters will probably not be played again in our lifetimes.
this vinyl re-mastered from digital certainly is a no starter for me. I think my Parlaphone Blue Box, Mofi Box and 1/4" tape will have to suffice.
That also raises another question. Did they use the masters for the digital copy or a safety?
If the 24/192 digital files are from the master....and that would make sense, that would be the way to archive delicate masters that shouldn't continue to be used...they'll be better than a tape safety. Which is, of course, why pros would make the decision to archive that way and generate all future collections from that digital safety.
The problem with the MFSL set is that, while it was created "from the master tapes (when available)," many of those masters just weren't very good. YMMV, but to my ears, a combination of the mono and stereo remasters (it depends on taste and the recording), even in redbook, sounds better than the old masters. Better balance, better tonality, better detail, better dynamics, better clarity. Listen to the drum sounds. Pay attention to your ability to differentiate voices when unison and harmony parts are being sung. I'm sure a quality process in transferring those masters to media helped, but the very careful, professional, loving remaster they made a few years ago helped a whole lot more. I'd bet the farm that this new vinyl, taken from the hi-res digital, is better than the MFSL.
Tim
The problem with the MFSL set is that, while it was created "from the master tapes (when available)," many of those masters just weren't very good. YMMV, but to my ears, a combination of the mono and stereo remasters (it depends on taste and the recording), even in redbook, sounds better than the old masters. Better balance, better tonality, better detail, better dynamics, better clarity. Listen to the drum sounds. Pay attention to your ability to differentiate voices when unison and harmony parts are being sung. I'm sure a quality process in transferring those masters to media helped, but the very careful, professional, loving remaster they made a few years ago helped a whole lot more. I'd bet the farm that this new vinyl, taken from the hi-res digital, is better than the MFSL.
Tim
Last edited:
+1 Frantz!
Listen first, then judge. I bought the vinyl Macca releases of Band On The Run, McCartney and RAM and they sound fine. If these LP's are close to those I wouldn't hesitate picking them up. I don't have the orginal UK pressings (only Canadian) or any of the MFSL ones to compare, and maybe these don't stack up, but to out and out discount the new ones beforehand seems rather narrow-minded.
I think only a small part of the controversy is how they sound; if they are from digital masters then it seems logical to me (not that the music industry is logical) that digital copies/versions of those same masters should be commercially available rather than only vinyl LP's.
The Beatles' masters (1/4", 1/2-track, 15 ips tapes) have lots of splices in them, which were supposedly pulled off and respliced for the digital transfers. You just can't play tapes like that many times without all sorts of real and potential problems.
The MFSL LP's don't sound that good for the most part; poor EQ choices and/or maybe not the actual masters? In any case, when I had the complete set I usually preferred Japanese masterings/pressings, or if available UK pressings from the early '70's. In general I think the Beatles' were poorly served on vinyl, particularly if you look at what has survived sounds like today. Admittedly I'm not a vinyl LP fan, but much of that comes from the sound of most LP's from the '70's and '80's, and most of the Beatles' output was among the worst.
The first part of your sentence makes no sense to me. I doubt the four “principals” would give a damn if the masters or something close to them was used to cut another set of LPs. In fact, they should already have a set of tapes for each LP that were used to cut the originals. The four principals didn’t seem to mind that the master tapes were used to make new digital versions of the LPs.
I have two copies of the BC-13 Parlaphone "Blue Box," one is the EMI Sweden release which I have never seen another one and the box is different than the EMI British Blue Box. The British copy opens from the top with a hinged top. The Swedish version lays down flat and you lift the top of the box off of the bottom. I bought my Swedish box around 1980 and the box itself is falling apart, but the LP jackets are still mint and the LPs are mint even though I have played them a gajillion times. I have left the British box unplayed so it's choice. I feel very fortunate to have these sets. They sound great.
We have to be careful when addressing the MFSL Beatles vinyl releases. The versions in the box (as shown in Wardsweb photo) are different from the single LP releases, that many people consider inferior. And even here, there are many contradictory opinions from knowledge people about the MFSL releases quality spread in the net.
My strongly biased and non expert opinion is that the LPs from my box sound excellent and I enjoy them a lot! Anyway, this thread arrived just in time - next weekend will be rainy here, may be a good time for listening to a few Beatles LPs.
Just for statistics, how many MFSL Beatles boxes do we have between WBF members? Up to now I count two.
Tim-I would appreciate it if you would list a couple examples of Beatles songs that you think are much improved with the remastered collection and what to listen for between the two versions. That way I can compare the remastered version to the original LPs and see where the chips fall. I believe you are comparing the original CDs to the remasterd CDs which is not the same as comparing the vinyl to the remastered CDs. I think everyone agrees the original Beatles CDs were horrendous sounding so it would be shocking if the remastered versions didn’t sound better.
One thing is for sure, the remastered CDs will sound different than the original LPs because the remastered files are different. I have the green apple which is 24/44.1 flac files and I have bitched about them numerous times. However, they deserve a serious listen now that I have the Mytek Stereo 192.
A friend of mine bought the MSFL box when it first came out and I have heard it numerous times. Both my friend and I preferred my EMI Swedish Blue Box although the MSFL trumps it in coolness factor. However, that was many moons and stereos ago so who knows what I would think now. I have owned several single MSFL Beatle LPs and I didn’t care for them either.
In fact, it is well documented that every step of the 2009 release process was approved by the four principals before proceeding to the next step, and the biggest reason it wasn't until 2009 that the re-release program finally concluded was difficulty in getting the four principals to agree on the process. The biggest difficulty was said to be getting agreement to play those master tapes (as opposed to one of the safety masters used for other releases between 1987 and 2009, such as the "Capitol box", the Yellow Submarine soudtrack, etc.)
I hear you rbbert, but the bottom line is that they can't make any money if the tapes sit in a vault and EMI refuses to use anything but the masters. And from what I read of the remastering process, the tapes were in beautiful shape.
You're right, Mep, excuse me, please. What I have to compare them to now is the original CDs vs the remastered CDs. I no longer have a vinyl rig upon which to listen to the records, and I only listened to the vinyl for 30 years or so, and auditory memory is short. Analog, digital, vinyl or R2R, they were pretty universally considered not all that for decades, as far as mastering quality is concerned, but I'm sure that, without a license to alter the masters, but with the benefit of an audiophile pressing, a really nice box and a big enough price tag, that MSFL performed some analog magic that transformed the unaltered masters into something more than they ever were.
Tim
Tim-I asked you in good faith to tell me about a couple of songs that you think are greatly improved with the remastered CDs and what to listen for in each song. I really want to compare them with the EMI Parlaphone LPs and see if I think the digital versions whomp some ass.
I did want to clarify that you were comparing CDs to CDs and not CDs to analog and you did that. Thanks. I was hoping that your post would give me what I asked for so I could listen to them tonight. I got your dig about hearing the analog versions for 30 years and the memory being short. I hope you also understand that current vinyl rigs and cartridges aren’t your father’s Oldsmobile.
The two original mono Parlophones LP I own (Rubber Soul & Revolver) sound better than the remastered CDs...I'm not sure if this is in part secondary to the remastering on the CDs which pushes the bass at little more forward with my ears being used to the original mono vinyl mix. Nonetheless, IMO, the remastered CDs are very good and IMO much better the orginal CD releases.
I have the MOFI Magical Mystery Tour release and it's not very good.
I'll be interested to compare the new stereo remasters, but want to audition before committing that amount of money.
I have the MOFI Magical Mystery Tour release and it's not very good.
I'll be interested to compare the new stereo remasters, but want to audition before committing that amount of money.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |