I picked up the remastered Abbey Road CD this week, and it has put me in a Beatles frame of mind. In my travels on the web this afternoon, I came across this voluminous study of the music and career of the Fab Four:


You can read Alan Pollack's fascinating notes on the Beatles' music HERE.

_________________
I really like all them "Aster" guitars. You know, like the Stratoc, Telec and Jazzm.

Thanks for the dense site, I see a pot of coffee and a stormy afternoon with a few Beatles discs playing in the background.
Would you mind telling us what you thought of the remastered disc?

Cheers,
John.E

Well, John.E, my impressions of the remastered Abbey Road are mostly favorable. However, I didn't really notice any difference on most of side one. The first song that really seemed cleaner and clearer to me was "I Want You (She's So Heavy)." Side two seemed to have benefited more from the remastering. "You Never Give Me Your Money" and the entire medley were excellent.

One notable exception was "Because." There's a pronounced hiss in the right channel that starts a few seconds before the first vocals come in. It really stood out as a flaw to me.

On the whole, Abbey Road was a reasonably well-produced album to start with, so the effect of remastering is probably less dramatic than it's likely to be on some of the earlier albums. I may buy some of them too, but I'm not in a great hurry.

I realize my critique is pretty non-technical and amateurish, but I hope it helps you!

_________________
I really like all them "Aster" guitars. You know, like the Stratoc, Telec and Jazzm.

The mono versions #$@*&!% scream on the early albums.

I would think the benefits would be more evident on the earlier LP's than Abbey Road. It was during those sessions that they aquired newer "solid state" equipment. I read that they were not a big fan of the new gear at the time and had to get used to the sound.

I haven't heard any of the newer CD's yet. I want to get the box.

_________________
"...The final truth is, there is no truth..." - (from "Nice n' Neat" by the Boomtown Rats)

Hey dbrodie. Yeah, I've put the box on my Amazon wish list in the hopes someone gives it to me for Christmas. Abbey Road was a pure impulse purchase.

_________________
I really like all them "Aster" guitars. You know, like the Stratoc, Telec and Jazzm.

If your interested in knowing more about the Beatles and their sound, check out the book 'Beatles Gear' by Andy Babiuk. I'm reading it right now and it is pretty good. There are also great pictures of their gear. I drool over George's rosewood Tele....amazing guitar.

I think there is such a thing as over-analyzing music. Hell just sit back and enjoy.

_________________
The time has gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say.

I have the complete stereo set and there is a difference. Because most of the CD's were originally recorded in mono, the mix is a little different and I felt the sound is more complete because of the added bit rate. I haven't A-B'd them yet side by side old vs. new. That will come in time. I just enjhoyed listening to the CD's with a new vervor. After aobut 7 days, my wife finally said enough! Isn't there some Bruce you want to hear? By the way, I am getting the mono set foir Christmas, so I'll have to wait to really hear if there is a difference in the old vs. new.

_________________
Lite Ash Tele, Partcaster Black Nashville Tele with Jason Lollars, Blues DeVille 410, Lunchbox 200 Watt Amp, Martin RTGE 00016 Acoustic

I am a HUGE fan of the Beatles. But what is the appeal of the mono set? I know that is how they were originally done, but ... so what?

_________________
Laughing out loud with fear and hope, I have a desperate plan ...

O1GT The big deal about the mono albums is that the Beatles were directly involved in the mix of those albums and had major input in the sound of the recordings. You have to remember at the time stereo was a fringe market and very few people even owned stereo systems. So this would be the way the Beatles heard and intended the public to hear there music and the way they did it right up till the White Album though that was not released in the U.S in mono. So these mixes are not stereo folded down to mono but the actual mono masters . I hope that can clear it up for you a bit.

In addition to this the early albums/songs were only recorded 3-track. Vocals on one track (mikes into a mixer then to the recorder) , guitars on the second (again mixed first then recorded) and bass & drums on the third. there's really nothing there for stereo to make much of a difference.

Flyingarmadillo I understand what you are saying but a lot of the younger guys who were not around are probably confused by the stereo -mono difference .Believe me to a lot of people it makes a big difference me not being one.lol My brother who has collected vinyl since I can remember walking this is a big deal, just as if one of us got an ax that had a hard rock or birds eye maple to someone outside the guitar community could care less. Personally I was never a big fan of mono though I love what Phil Spector did with it. To me what is amazing when you think of it is that the Beatles went in and cut there entire first album in a single day. If that is not mind boggling nothing is.

I always thought successful monophonic mixing was a little like taking a beautiful black-and-white photograph. You have to make the most of contrast and clarity of line in order to make it work. That's definitely easier said than done, but can you imagine the works of Ansel Adams in color?



Oh, and I just bought the remastered (stereo) Revolver CD today. I'm hopeless...

_________________
I really like all them "Aster" guitars. You know, like the Stratoc, Telec and Jazzm.

Yes Russian that is why I mentioned Spector as what he did with it would never sound right in stereo.