I finally read the full article after realizing my Stereophile was buried in a stack of mail. I have to say, as much as I've been a champion of Art Dudley, he's talking out of his rear through much of that piece. Perhaps not in regards to the Beatles reissue itself but in remastering in general.
Art Dudley is not happy with the new Beatles reissue lp box set
- Thread starter Mr. Lin
- Start date
I just think his entire logic is completely flawed, and its based upon assumptions about digital quality verses analog quality, and "near infinite" resolution of the former. Not to mention the fact that there HAVE been changes in quality, in what can be done, and cleaned up. And he also makes the assumption that everything is re-EQed and compressed, when in fact, there's nothing to suggest that that happens, and the care that the can be put into remastering can erase faults that were simply not the original intention of the artists. Frankly, he's coming across as somebody suffering from grumpy-old-man syndrome at best and a luddite at worst. I really think he's full of crap on this one. Not because of his remarks on the Beatles reissues, but by his extrapolating the problems in them to include every effort to digitially remaster and repress anything. Frankly, some of the best albums I have heard have been remastered from digital sources. I dont' find the limitations and faults of the recording and mastering abilities of the time to have anything to do with the artistic intent.
juncers
Reasonably skeptical about everything
The mastering engineer said roughly the same thing. He really doesn't understand the reverence that the master tapes are held in. Either way, you need to re-EQ them for the LP. The difference is that with tape you need to understand what the original engineer did to compensate for shortcomings in the recording process. The EQ was different for each channel and each section of tape. That was done by the ME who put in on CD to start. Why waste all that time and effort to reinvent the wheel. Use the CD mastering( which is now a consistently eq'd product) and apply a consistent EQ throughout the cutting process to compensate for the shortcomings on an LP.
It sounded completely logical to me. The reason they didn't use the 192k masters was that there was no point. If you sent a signal higher than 24k to a cutting head, it would get so hot it would soon be useless and unusable.
Ray
It sounded completely logical to me. The reason they didn't use the 192k masters was that there was no point. If you sent a signal higher than 24k to a cutting head, it would get so hot it would soon be useless and unusable.
Ray
jmathers
Super Member
Are you suggesting that there is no sound quality difference between an LP that uses 24/44K digital for a source and one that uses 24/192K digital for a source?
Obviously, there needs to be re-EQing for each. But certainly the 24/192K version should sound better. No?
Jeff
juncers
Reasonably skeptical about everything
Sean Magee is saying exactly that. You can't put anything above 24k on an LP without destroying the cutting head, so, in his opinion, it was pointless using the Hi-Rez. Masters.
Looking at the article now, he says anything above 16k is dangerous and must be monitored carefully.
Ray
Looking at the article now, he says anything above 16k is dangerous and must be monitored carefully.
Ray
Last edited:
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Again, a voice of happy platitudes and rosy vistas but, has no concept what came before it.
In my humble opinion Art Dudley was dead on target again (as usual) and had the coconuts to say so, God bless him. He may sound like a grumpy old man because he has experience, knowledge, and enough history with the stuff, to know the difference.
My hats off to Art Dudley. This kind of half assed reissues are despicable, especially from the likes of Abbey Road Studios, EMI/Apple and Paul McCartney.
If you don't have many of the reissues that were done well, how can you know that the new ones are shlock? I do and Art knows, I basically agree with him on every account. Pick up a Beatles Red Mono or Blue Stereo UK box, some Red Odeon Monos, and a few Mofi, hell, even the Toshiba/EMI Blue Obi that were (DSD?), not to mention the Parlophones...these latest were a grab bag, a hodge-podge, and a mess! I've talked with many folks who had to ask for replacements of several pressings from a single box because the domestics were so shoddily pressed. Art Juxtaposes this with Chad Kassem's Quality Record Pressings and Analogue Productions and the killer job done on the Doors box set, just to show that vinyl reissue can be done better than ever today.
In possibly the last Hello, goodbye for the fab four, I'm sorry and it's too bad because these latest guys basically, screwed the pooch on this reissue, in my humble opinion, when they could have hit one out of the park with DSD 192/24 > SACDs and quality record pressings... what the hell? I for one can hear the difference.
Art is a great read and obviously, still cares way too much, and has an appropriately morbid sense off humor in this instance, the dead pet analogy sleighs me!
Happy Listening (enforcer)!
Again, a voice of happy platitudes and rosy vistas but, has no concept what came before it.
In my humble opinion Art Dudley was dead on target again (as usual) and had the coconuts to say so, God bless him. He may sound like a grumpy old man because he has experience, knowledge, and enough history with the stuff, to know the difference.
My hats off to Art Dudley. This kind of half assed reissues are despicable, especially from the likes of Abbey Road Studios, EMI/Apple and Paul McCartney.
If you don't have many of the reissues that were done well, how can you know that the new ones are shlock? I do and Art knows, I basically agree with him on every account. Pick up a Beatles Red Mono or Blue Stereo UK box, some Red Odeon Monos, and a few Mofi, hell, even the Toshiba/EMI Blue Obi that were (DSD?), not to mention the Parlophones...these latest were a grab bag, a hodge-podge, and a mess! I've talked with many folks who had to ask for replacements of several pressings from a single box because the domestics were so shoddily pressed. Art Juxtaposes this with Chad Kassem's Quality Record Pressings and Analogue Productions and the killer job done on the Doors box set, just to show that vinyl reissue can be done better than ever today.
In possibly the last Hello, goodbye for the fab four, I'm sorry and it's too bad because these latest guys basically, screwed the pooch on this reissue, in my humble opinion, when they could have hit one out of the park with DSD 192/24 > SACDs and quality record pressings... what the hell? I for one can hear the difference.
Art is a great read and obviously, still cares way too much, and has an appropriately morbid sense off humor in this instance, the dead pet analogy sleighs me!
Happy Listening (enforcer)!
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
I have no experience with the dongle, but do with the CD Monos. They're nothing to write home about. The dongle is of higher resolution digitally, which would bode well in its favor. Art Dudley found it superior overall to the CD box release and he's a vinyl leaning guy, so....
Happy Listening!
I have no experience with the dongle, but do with the CD Monos. They're nothing to write home about. The dongle is of higher resolution digitally, which would bode well in its favor. Art Dudley found it superior overall to the CD box release and he's a vinyl leaning guy, so....
Happy Listening!
ekmanning5
Time has told me...
I wonder if the shoddy reproductions (I have the box, and some ARE poor) are a result of an arrogance of product. Meaning, we have something we KNOW people are going to want in large numbers, and we're just going to get it out there. Damn the results. Years ago we were buying a car that was so popular there were none at the dealer to demo. We were told, find someone you know with this car and demo theirs. Ridiculous. We didn't purchase it. But anyone who wants these Beatles reissues doesn't have the luxury of walking out and buying something different. Other than the cd boxes that is. The vinyl is what it is, and didn't have to be that way. I've no opinion on the article itself as I haven't read it.
jmathers
Super Member
I believe dynamic compression was applied to both the 24/44 USB stick files and to the 16/44 Stereo CDs (though no compression on the mono set AFAIK). No dynamic compression on the 24/44 files used for the LPs. So Dudley may be suggesting that the compression on the USB files is a problem.
http://www.analogplanet.com/content...an-magee-talks-about-mastering-beatles-lp-box
Jeff
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
I can't find Art's article but, I recall him suggesting that the USB dongle was better than the CD's from a resolution aspect and consistently better than the vinyl box set... (if I remember this correctly, I'll have to find that to verify) but that's not saying much.
It's a shame, really. I would much rather be raving about how good it was.
Happy Listening!
I can't find Art's article but, I recall him suggesting that the USB dongle was better than the CD's from a resolution aspect and consistently better than the vinyl box set... (if I remember this correctly, I'll have to find that to verify) but that's not saying much.
It's a shame, really. I would much rather be raving about how good it was.
Happy Listening!
With the evolution of my system it has become glaringly easy to sort the wheat from the chaff with regard to new reissues vs the best of the available pressings. Without reference to any other pressing I can understand the acceptance of most reissues. The reissues sound fine as long as you don't have access to a superlative past pressing. Some reissues are themselves superb and rank as almost as good as the very best out there. Many though are completely outclassed by the best that is available. I will say that rarely is the reissue the absolute worst sounding pressing that can be sourced. Even the past has some real stinkers on offer.
When I read M. Fremer praising the White Album as one of the better sounding of these new 2012 Beatles vinyl reissues, I bought it because I have the Mobile Fidelity pressing and it would be interesting to see how they compare. Well the bottom line is they don't. The 2012 reissue is a shadow of the MFSL. It has put me off buying any of the other 2012 reissues.
Unfortunately I have come to the same conclusion about the Pink Floyd reissues. I have what is probably the best available pressings of The Wall ( the UK first edition. The much applauded Japanese pressing is not as good and the UK 1st ed) and Wish You Were Here ( the Japanese Mastersound Half Speed Mastered). Neither of the 2012 Floyd reissues is bad. They are quite good in fact, but the best pressings are definitely better.
This is not the only time that I've seen reissues lauded as wonderful sound, only to find that he carefully selected pressing in my collection leaves the reissue at a disadvantage. Viewing the reissues in isolation I would have no complaint. It's just a little bit disappointing that they can't equal or surpass the best pressings of the old days. It would be nice if they did. :sigh:
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
Tell me about it.
michael fremer from stereophile never met a turntable over $50,000 that he didn't like.
btw, the best magazine i've ever read that was just dedicated to music is THE BIG TAKEOVER.
excellent reviews and interviews. jack rabid, the publisher, has the best taste in music of anybody i've ever read.
if you love rock 'n' roll, please check it out.
btw, the best magazine i've ever read that was just dedicated to music is THE BIG TAKEOVER.
excellent reviews and interviews. jack rabid, the publisher, has the best taste in music of anybody i've ever read.
if you love rock 'n' roll, please check it out.
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
Wouldn't it be strange if he did? :scratch2:
