Remastered Beatles CDs? No, no, no! (We want ’em on Super Audio)
There’s a lot of attention being paid to the re-release of The Beatles’ catalogue on Sept. 9, this time remastered for compact disc. And while that sounds like a great thing for those of us who love The Fabs, as I do, I dare protest and say: Why not put these landmark recordings out on Super Audio CDs?
Remastering Beatles material for CD is the sonic equivalent of taking that improved fidelity and clarity, then squeezing it into a straw. Super Audio CDs, developed in 1999 but still waiting to catch on with consumers, represent a huge improvement in quality that you don’t have to be a hi-fi geek to notice. The numbers are impressive, sure: 120 db of dynamic range versus 96 db for CD, and frequency response that hits the 50 kHz mark, where dogs can hear—and humans sense extra definition in the treble. Many CDs sound brittle in the upper register.
For expert and average listener alike, all you have to know is that Super Audio sounds amazing, as if you’re sitting in the control room of a recording studio listening to the playback with the band.
While one can argue that SACD isn’t commercially viable, I’d beg to differ. After Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” came out on SACD, it sold more than 800,000 copies. And Beatles fans remain just as dedicated to their band—probably more so—than those who bought “Dark Side.”
There’s even a petition going around the Internet asking folks to demand that the Beatles release their discs on Super Audio. The good news: All that new mastering work done for these CD releases can be utilized for such a project. The bad: No sign yet from Apple Records that such a project is in the works. Yet one of my Fab Friends tells me that the mastering WAS done to Blu-Ray specs, meaning we could see these remastered editions on Blu-Ray audio soon. This would also mark a considerable improvement over standard CDs (though Super Audio maintains an edge to my ear over another DVD-oriented format, DVD-Audio discs).
Meanwhile, will I dish out $260 for the stereo box set? Nope, not yet anyway. Should you do the same? Well, that depends on whether you really feel the need to run out and snag some New Old Fab Stuff … or else feel, as I do, that it’s worth holding out for something even better.
The Beatles were never about striving for second best in anything. I only hope that mentality catches up to the current, and very available, audio technology.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
It’s an urban legend that SACD sounds better than CD. The extra sampling rate of SACD merely enables recording into the supersonic range, as you say: “frequency response that hits the 50 kHz mark, where dogs can hear”. BUT humans can’t hear or sense this (actually only young kids can hear up to even 20 kHz–until their hearing is damaged by rock concerts– older men can hear only to about 8kHz). Frequencies over 20kHz are 1) inaudible and 2) were never recorded on the original master tapes anyway. Repeated blind testing has shown the obvious-that people can’t hear these differences.
As for the higher dynamic range you enthuse about: “The numbers are impressive, sure: 120 db of dynamic range versus 96 db for CD”. in fact, 96 dB is higher than you get even in a very good recording studio, and certainly is far higher than is on the original tapes, let alone what is feasible in even the best playback equipment and quiet listening room.
We are past the era when higher numbers are always better–there is a limit to what we can hear. Better to put the focus on improving the acoustic ambience of the music–but that’s a whole different challenge, and one that one can’t do to the Beatles originals.
Hey Shep333, let me just say politely that you are incorrect. I’ve been an audio engineer for over twenty five years and for your information there are alot of older people who can hear well above 8k. Also, The DSD or SACD format which i’ve had a fair amount of professional experience recording with is less about high frequency response and more about bit resolution. The same as a 12 megapixal photo having alot better resolution than a 3 megapixal photo. It’s about RESOLUTION. In blind tests the first thing that people hear(and I don’t mean trained ears) is better low frequency extension and a more three dimensional sound image. If you can’t hear the difference, I’m sorry. Please don’t be upset with those who can.
Dear Soundman,
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks for your response. I, too, have been involved in audio, for 40 years. Of course some can hear a good bit above 8kHz. A claim of SACD is reproduction to 40kHz. Surely you do not think this is relevant? How do the laws of physics, or a blind listening test, show that an increased sampling rate could make a difference to low frequency reproduction or to soundstage imaging?
In the case of the Beatles, their recordings are in any event just simple multitrack: far-left, far-right, or center-channel.No ORTF-style “living presence” stereo-spread recording here. Hardly an arena for a revelatory improvement in soundstage imaging. And the “best” Beatles are argued to be…the mono versions.
Non-blind listening tests invariably show that people find the newest, most expensive, equipment sounds better, even $1000 (or £1000) pieces of wire. But that’s a matter of psychology, not reality…
Shep333, I record in DSD just about everyday at my job. I’ve engineered and mastered stuff over the years with analog, 16bit, 20bit, 24bit/44.1k,24/96k/24/192k. Done blind comparisons with all kinds of dithering schemes. To my ears and many of my musician friends, mastering engineers and other recording engineers, yes we can hear improved fidelity, soundstage nuances, minute detail information with higher bit sampling rates and bit depths. Whether it makes a marked improvement in the Beatles catalog, I have no idea. All i’m saying is that the SACD format does have better audio resolution than a standard 16bit CD, and alot of people can hear a difference in the two formats. To my ears a DSD recording sounds closer to a live event as it comes through the recording console for the first time and analog tapes that are transferred to DSD are virtually indiscernable in comparison.
It’s interesting that two audiophiles can’t agree on such a subject as this. I’m sorry, but even the most tone-deaf people I’ve met can easily hear the difference between the CD version and something like DVD audio (DTS format). SACD players are way out of my price range, and are as rare as teeth on a chicken in my town. Therefore, I can’t claim that it’s better or worse than DVD-A.
In any case, it’s conceivable that the extra resolution may prove to be somewhat of a negative if listeners begin to plainly hear all of the flaws of the recordings (although if the “Love” DVD-A is any indication of how fantastic the recordings originally were, this shouldn’t be much of an issue, right?)
I’m more annoyed at the record industry’s attempt to shell out all recordings in a measured, behind-the-times sort of fashion, making us (the consumer) to foot the bill. C’mon! It’s almost 2010… surround sound should be the de facto format by now.
Anyone who has had the opportunity to listen to legal or illegal surround sound versions of any classic album knows that the clarity, and instrument spread due to that format breathes new life into old recordings. Some might say it’s like colorizing old black & white movies. So what. If it brings in a whole new audience that would otherwise ignore their work, so be it. No one mixes albums in mono these days, nor do they add clicks and pops throughout the whole album, or limit its frequency response. Just because a movie director shoots in black & white doesn’t make the movie all that much better. It can work on a certain level, but for the most part, it’s generally used as a way to delineate the viewing audience into two camps. No one can seriously defend bringing back mono again.
Therefore, I’ll certainly not be buying any of the CD versions released this September. Blu-ray version? For sure… but not boring old CDs.
While I am an audio engineer myself, I don’t pretend to know more than some of you posting here; you all bring up brilliant points. I just know from the goosebump factor I’ve experienced on my own that SACD sounds quite amazing. I always wonder myself whether a wonderfully mastered analog recording isn’t the best bet of all, especially when the transfer comes from as close to the original source tapes as possible. But in the meantime, I encourage the debate on this. It’s wonderful to see, and in the end, the hearing of music is as much about melody, harmony and magic as anything else. After all: Roger McGuinn of the Byrds was inspired to go into music by stuff he heard on his transistor radio as a boy.
Is the set worth the big bucks? Check out 8 hidden gems on the new & improved catalog of The Beatles @ http://bit.ly/kSBMn