Remastered Beatles Vinyl: Will you buy?
- Thread starter vinylreview
- Start date
gusten
Addicted Member
I have the original mono UK pressings, starting with For Sale and ends with Sgt. Pepper. The White Album was also released in a mono mix, but I do not have that.
Some of these have their flaws with some pops and small scratches, but I still feel that they must be rather close to the master tapes, depending on the very good inner dynamics in the sound, which I always feel are less present if digitally remastering.
So, no I do not feel any need to buy anything new regarding Beatles.
gusten
Edit: Only last week a bought a mint Magical Mystery Tour, original mono UK, two EPs with a book. I don´t think it has been played since -67. Wonderful.
Some of these have their flaws with some pops and small scratches, but I still feel that they must be rather close to the master tapes, depending on the very good inner dynamics in the sound, which I always feel are less present if digitally remastering.
So, no I do not feel any need to buy anything new regarding Beatles.
gusten
Edit: Only last week a bought a mint Magical Mystery Tour, original mono UK, two EPs with a book. I don´t think it has been played since -67. Wonderful.
Last edited:
spideyjack
Addicted Member
How do i know if my mono white album CD is a Dr. Hibbert? (he's the doctor on The Simpsons isn't he?). Mine has a totally fake apple label, and sounds pretty great. I bought it off of ebay about 3 or 4 years ago when one could still do such a thing.
As for these reissues, I just don't need em. Except maybe a mono White on vinyl, but I will gladly pay the dollars for an original when i can afford it.
I do think that for newer fans and hard-core compleatests these reissues will be a big deal. I'm just going to keep scrounging for Beatles and solo 45s.
As for these reissues, I just don't need em. Except maybe a mono White on vinyl, but I will gladly pay the dollars for an original when i can afford it.
I do think that for newer fans and hard-core compleatests these reissues will be a big deal. I'm just going to keep scrounging for Beatles and solo 45s.
Arkay
Lunatic Member
Does everybody but me have UK Parlophone mono Beatles in good playable condition?
Don't give up hope, guys. A lot of Beatles LPs were sold, so there are still a bunch out there. Just persist in looking. I didn't have any two years ago, and now I have five or six (UK Parlophone Monos, plus a few Stereos), none of which were expensive. Blue Box set and a bunch of others, too! :yes:
[Okay, it might help that I'm in a former British colony, but still, Beatles sold LPs worldwide, and UK releases also made it to the States sometimes.]Ditto; I'd upgrade the CDs to better CDs, but won't buy new releases on vinyl that sound "digital", nor duplicates of any titles I already have. I keep hoping to find that original masters box set from MFSL, but no luck so far. That and a good "butcher" are my personal Beatles "holy grails".
spideyjack
Addicted Member
ok i googled dr ebbert and found that the white album in mono comes with the 4 pictures, mine did. and maybe has a color label like mine does. any numbers or text i should look for? just curious.
Old_Tech
Yer-isn't!
Mono
KeninDC
Hazy Cosmic Jive
The good Dr.'s bootlegs are really good needledrops. They have had gentle noise reduction applied in places (listen to the intros and outros).
Compared to the 1987 discs, they are better. The exceptions are the "Abbey Road" and "MMT" 1987 discs (and, of course, the earlier Japanese "Abbey Road").
Since the good Dr. is stealing intellectual property and cannot press LPs, I am excited about new, legit LPs (and new CDs) that are sourced from the master tapes. Especially in mono. While I've paid $100 plus for mono UK Parlophone LP pressings, and could pay $80 for an individual LP in the Japanese red wax mono series, it will be nice to have the option to have brand new vinyl for a reasonable price.
Ken
Compared to the 1987 discs, they are better. The exceptions are the "Abbey Road" and "MMT" 1987 discs (and, of course, the earlier Japanese "Abbey Road").
Since the good Dr. is stealing intellectual property and cannot press LPs, I am excited about new, legit LPs (and new CDs) that are sourced from the master tapes. Especially in mono. While I've paid $100 plus for mono UK Parlophone LP pressings, and could pay $80 for an individual LP in the Japanese red wax mono series, it will be nice to have the option to have brand new vinyl for a reasonable price.
Ken
goldwax
dozy ming-mong
I missed this post somehow.
I don't know if the Blue Box will drop in value or not. I mean, it's not THAT expensive at $20 a disc for NM copies. It'll still be cheaper than whatever Capitol releases (if they come out, which seems more likely now).
There's still the fact that the new vinyl will be digitally sourced, though. And there's only a limited quantity of Blue Boxes out there. AND this is the Beatles we're talking about--their stuff is always collectible.
It might even be possible that given the interest in vinyl and hoopla about the remasters, that the Blue Box will increase in value at a quicker rate than it is now, if it gets help up on forums like this one as somehow better than the remastered vinyl.
Personally, if I didn't already have a Blue Box, it would STILL be on my to-buy list.
Ronald1973
8-trackin', Hank, Sr. man
Okay, call me a casual Beatles fan who might be a little dumb lol (my favorite song is actually "Baby's In Black" btw). I do like their stuff but I'm a bit curious as to the concern over mono vs. stereo. Are the mono versions different than the stereo? It would seem to me that one would prefer stereo unless it were fake stereo. Someone help me out!!! Thanks!
goldwax
dozy ming-mong
The main differences are in the early albums, where hard panning was used in the stereo mixes. Personally, I prefer the mono, where the sound is much more cohesive.
In albums like Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's and White Album, both stereo and mono have their proponents. There are differences in lengths of songs, instruments and vocals, effects and so on, that probably make getting the mono versions something that casual Beatles fans don't need to pursue. (That said, several Beatles have said that the mono mix of Sgt. Pepper's is the true version of the album, and the one to have.)
BTW, Baby's in Black is a great song, and in some ways Beatles for Sale is my favorite Beatles album! (Note that I didn't say it was the best!)
Ronald1973
8-trackin', Hank, Sr. man
Thank you very much...I figured that was the difference, but wasn't sure. My intro to Baby's in Black is from Beatles '65 actually which I own a mono Capitol copy of. I have to say that the CD version I've heard of the song vs. vinyl, I prefer vinyl.
eb2jim
Super Member
As a serious Beatle fan, I am looking forward to the remasters. I especially want the mono box. But I am on the fence about purchasing vinyl copies of this stuff, for the same reason I avoid the newer vinyl. If it is a digital master, then I won't pay for it. I can buy very clean vintage copies of their lps, which do continually go up in value, for prices which are still affordable overall. There are crazy exceptions, like truly mint White Albums as the jackets always get stained and worn. But that is the collector side. Truth be told a clean US reissue is more often than not a fine sounding and well-pressed disc. The UK imports from the 70s are very plentiful, and the Japanese reissues from the same period are a bit pricey, but still cheap enough. So, to buy new remasters on CD appeals to me, but vinyl remastered stuff is not so appealing when original and quality reissues of the original masters can be found on line and in used shops every day.
Sharpstik
Stuck in the 70's
I see the light. Good link. I saw and held those UK covers and I wanted them. At 20.00per, I can now have them.
PaulParrot
Active Member
In just several months from now, we will know if the Beatles vinyl remasters are better than the UK pressings currently available on eBay. If someone hasn't gotten around to buying Beatles albums sometime in THE LAST 40 YEARS, waiting several months more doesn't strike me as unreasonable.
One aspect that almost certainly will be superior on the new remastered ones is the bass. Especially on the earlier titles, the bass was deliberately very rolled off by the mastering engineers so that it wouldn't cause playback problems on the cheap record players of the day. The quality of the typical fan's record player back in the early 1960s was abysmal compared to what we all take for granted now.
One aspect that almost certainly will be superior on the new remastered ones is the bass. Especially on the earlier titles, the bass was deliberately very rolled off by the mastering engineers so that it wouldn't cause playback problems on the cheap record players of the day. The quality of the typical fan's record player back in the early 1960s was abysmal compared to what we all take for granted now.
goldwax
dozy ming-mong
Me neither, except for the reasons I've already stated.
It's possible. We'll know when the CDs arrive, which I'll be picking up, of course. But even if the bass is louder on the new vinyl reissues, that won't be enough to make me rush out and buy them. Of course, someone who doesn't have a complete collection of Beatles on vinyl will have a decision to make--nothing wrong with more choices!
grooveman
Super Member
I'll be buying the CD re-master Box Sets, but will wait to see what the public opinion is on the vinyl if it is in fact released. I personally own the Blue Box, MFSL, Japan Red Vinyl Monos, German MMT and all Mono/Stereo Capitol LPs.
It would have been nice if the CDs were SACD Hybrids instead of offering CD-Rom Video Features on each disc. Then again, I'm not sure if EMI ever supported SACD, just DVD-Audio.
As a side note. I've discussed The Beatles Re-mastered Series with several people who already own the original CDs, most of whom are not Audiophiles. And the general opinon is that they'll probably not be buying the new re-masters, and consider the current CDs good enough. Granted these individuals are casual Beatles fans who listen to most of their music in their cars and on their computers, but these same people purchased the original CDs without hesitation 20 years ago.
My buddy who has owned an Indie record store for over 30 years, has said that there's little initial interest in the re-masters from his customers, aside from myself and a few others so far. I'm sure that this will change as the release date and Xmas season approaches. Only time will tell I guess!
It would have been nice if the CDs were SACD Hybrids instead of offering CD-Rom Video Features on each disc. Then again, I'm not sure if EMI ever supported SACD, just DVD-Audio.
As a side note. I've discussed The Beatles Re-mastered Series with several people who already own the original CDs, most of whom are not Audiophiles. And the general opinon is that they'll probably not be buying the new re-masters, and consider the current CDs good enough. Granted these individuals are casual Beatles fans who listen to most of their music in their cars and on their computers, but these same people purchased the original CDs without hesitation 20 years ago.
My buddy who has owned an Indie record store for over 30 years, has said that there's little initial interest in the re-masters from his customers, aside from myself and a few others so far. I'm sure that this will change as the release date and Xmas season approaches. Only time will tell I guess!
PaulParrot
Active Member
Massive publicity, especially interviews, and word of mouth should help a lot on sales. But obviously the CD market is but a former shadow of itself, and The Beatles should have struck several years ago.
If they'd have finalized the deal with i-Tunes, you can bet Apple Computer would have advertised the bloody hell out of Beatles remasters. But it's hard to reason with greed.
If they'd have finalized the deal with i-Tunes, you can bet Apple Computer would have advertised the bloody hell out of Beatles remasters. But it's hard to reason with greed.