goodrob13.com » Reviews

Reviews

Headphone Review – Sony MDR-ZX700

posted by Rob on May 18, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Comments (0)

This is the first in my ongoing series of headphone reviews. I’m passionate about music and sound quality and am very particular when it comes to headphones. I have a difficult time finding a pair that makes me happy. Even though I’ve come across dedicated gadget web sites and headphone forums, none of them were useful for finding the best-sounding, most comfortable, affordable pair of headphones. That’s why I feel the need to share my own findings with you.

Sony MDR-ZX700
Sony MDR-ZX700 headphones box

Release Date
2011

Price
Sony’s suggested retail price is $119.99, but I’ve seen them for as low as $104 on Amazon and $99 Buy It Now on eBay. The average price seems to be in the $115 range.

Sony’s Specifications
50 mm drivers (dome type, OFC copper voice coils, integrated multi-layer film diaphragm)
neodymium magnets
frequency response: 5-40,000 Hz
nominal impedance: 24 ohms at 1 kHz
sensitivity: 106 dB/mW
max input capability (a.k.a. power handling capacity): 2,000 mW
cord length: 3.94 ft (1.2 m)
weight: 9.17 oz (I assume that’s without the cord. Sony doesn’t specify.)
1/8″ gold-plated stereo mini plug

Headphone Type
The Sony MDR-ZX700 are full-size headphones featuring a closed-back circumaural design. That means they cup the entire ear and are sealed, which helps keep them in place, helps muffle outside noise, and helps prevent the sounds inside the headphones from leaking out and disturbing people nearby.

A note about headphone types:

Circumaural headphones cup the entire ear. That helps keep them in place, helps muffle outside noise, and helps prevent the sounds inside the headphones from leaking out and disturbing people nearby.

Supra-aural headphones rest on the ear without actually cupping them. That means some outside noise is allowed in, and sounds from the headphones can leak out and disturb people nearby. It also means the headphones could slip off or move out of position more easily. Some people find supra-aural headphones more comfortable than circumaural ones.

Closed-back heaphones, whether they’re circumaural or supra-aural, are sealed on the outside. They lack vents. They help muffle outside noise and help prevent the sounds inside the headphones from leaking out and disturbing people nearby. Some people complain that closed-back headphones make their ears hot after a while.

Open-back headphones, whether they’re circumaural or supra-aural, are vented. They allow outside noise in and music to leak out and disturb people nearby. The advantage according to many people is that open-back headphones sound a bit better than closed-back headphones, and that the vented design helps keep their ears cooler than a sealed closed-back design.

To me, open-back headphones are ideal for listening to music at home, where it’s quiet and I won’t disturb anyone. Closed-back headphones are ideal when I’m riding a noisy bus or train, but are also perfect when I’m home. It ultimately comes down to personal preference. Either way, if you wear your headphones outside, please stay alert and be careful.

Sony MDR-ZX700 headphones

Comfort
Comfort is very important for a pair of headphones. My daily commute to and from NYC is at least an hour each way and I spend that time listening to music and podcasts, so whichever pair of headphones I end up wearing must be comfortable.

The Sony MDR-ZX700 headphones weigh 9.17 oz. (260 g). Believe it or not, that’s fairly heavy, even for full-size headphones. To compare (without the cord, except where noted):

AKG K 240 MK II – 8.5 oz. (241 g)
Audio-Technica ATH-M30 – 7 oz. (198 g)
Bose AE2 – 4.9 oz. (140 g) (with the cord)
Sennheiser HD 280 Pro – 7.8 oz. (221 g)
Shure SRH440 – 6.4 oz. (181 g)
Sony MDR-V6 – 8.1 oz. (230 g)
Sony MDR-ZX700 – 9.17 oz. (260 g) (I assume that’s without the cord. Sony doesn’t specify.)

The only pair of headphones I’ve come across that weigh more than the Sony MDR-ZX700 is the Audio-Technica ATH-M50, which weighs 10 oz. (284 g) without the cord.

So the question remains, are the MDR-ZX700 headphones comfortable? If I’m listening to them for 45 minutes or an hour, my answer is an unenthusiastic “yes”. If I’m listening to them for a couple of hours, my answer is “no”.

The headband is padded, but not quite enough to overcompensate for the weight of the headphones. Because of their weight, I don’t enjoy wearing them for more than an hour at a time. They feel nice at first, but I slowly begin to feel the pressure building at the top of my head. If the headband were slightly wider and slightly more padded, I think that would’ve eliminated the problem.

By comparison, I have an old pair of Sony MDR-CD570 heapdhones from 1995 that feature a soft, self-adjusting headband that’s very comfortable. Why did Sony ditch the self-adjusting design in favor of a traditional, hard, less comfortable headband? And is the top of my head abnormally sensitive?

The ear cushions are nicely padded and feel good on my ears. It’s just the top of my head that feels uncomfortable after a while.

The headband is adjustable beyond the size of my head (in both larger and smaller directions), so it should fit most heads fine. And I don’t feel a tight “clamping” or “squeezing” effect like I have with some other headphones (Koss UR55, Shure SHR440).

I’ve worn headphones that were far more comfortable (Bose AE2, Sony MDR-CD570), some that were less comfortable (Grado SR80i, Koss UR55, Shure SHR440), and some that were downright painful (Sony MDR-NC7). The MDR-ZX700 are somewhere in the middle, especially when wearing them for a few hours at a time.

Sound Quality
In terms of sound, the Sony MDR-ZX700 compare favorably to many of the other headphones I’ve tried. They definitely sound better than any of the $200 and below Sennheisers I’ve tested, but not as good as the Grado SR80i.

Even though the MDR-ZX700 headphones sound good, they aren’t fantastic. They sound a bit “dark”, as if the high frequencies were rolled off. Some people might actually prefer this, but I don’t. I prefer more sparkly, detailed highs…not to the point of being sibilant or harsh, but definitely brighter.

The low frequencies are slightly plugged-up, contributing to the “dark” sound and making the bass sound a bit more muddy than it should. The MDR-ZX700′s large 50 mm drivers handle very low frequencies nicely and the bass doesn’t sound overly boxy or boomy like other headphones I’ve tried, but I still would’ve liked a tiny bit more detail here.

So out-of-the-box, the MDR-ZX700 sound good…not mind-blowingly fantastic, but good. However, with a tweak of the equalizer, they go from good to great. Here are the EQ settings I use in iTunes:

Sony MDR-ZX700 headphones EQ

As you can see, I reduced some of the low frequencies by one or two decibels, boosted the midrange frequencies by one or two decibels, and boosted the high frequencies by two to four. With these settings (or the equivalent settings on your device), the MDR-ZX700 sound great. I hear bright detailed highs, strong detailed lows, and a nice even tone in between. To me, this makes them very pleasant to listen to, no matter what style of music.

Keep in mind, these are the settings I prefer. I feel like they really open up these headphones and make them shine, but you might have a different preference. That said, my EQ settings are still a useful visual indicator of which frequencies are too prominent and which are too subdued out-of-the-box.

Cord and Plug
The Sony MDR-ZX700 headphones feature a 3.94 ft cord (47.25″, or 1.2 m). I bought these headphones to use on-the-go and find the cord length perfect. I get the benefits of full-size headphones that sound good and block out some bus and train noise, without the drawback of having to wind up several feet of excess cord and jam it into my pocket.

For listening to music at home or recording in a studio, the cord might be too short. If that’s the case, an inexpensive extension cord is required. It’s an easy solution and I like having the option of a short cord for commuting and using a separate extension cord at home.

The plug is standard 1/8″ and gold-plated. It’ll work with iPhones, Android phones, portable MP3 players, and other devices that have 1/8″ jacks. For listening on a home sound system or recording in a studio, a separate 1/8″-to-1/4″ adapter is most likely required.

I must also point out that the cord doesn’t have an inline microphone or device controls. It’s just a plain old regular cord. Remember this if you plan on using these headphones with a mobile phone.

Overall Value and Closing Comments
The Sony MDR-ZX700 headphones straddle the line between portable and home use. The short 3.94 ft (1.2 m) cord, 1/8″ stereo mini plug, and low 24 ohm impedance are perfect for use with portable audio devices, but their overall size and the fact that they don’t fold up might make them better suited for home or studio. Then again, if you’re going to use these at home or in a studio, you’ll probably need to buy a separate extension cord and stereo 1/8″-to-1/4″ adapter.

I actually like the fact that these are full-size headphones because I want the cups to enclose my ears and block out some of the bus and/or train noise during my daily commute…and I don’t want to sacrifice sound quality and power just because I’m on-the-go. I understand some people might prefer smaller headphones that fold up, even if sound quality suffers a little, so it comes down to personal preference.

Are these headphones worth $100 to $120? That’s a tough question to answer and it depends on what you’re looking for. $120 isn’t cheap, but it isn’t super expensive, either. If the MDR-ZX700 had cost $150, I’d say they aren’t worth it. If they had cost $75, I’d say they’re totally worth it. But at $120, it gets tricky.

The sound quality by itself is good, and becomes great with a few minor tweaks to the EQ. That would be a plus, except not all devices have customizable equalizers. If yours doesn’t, you’d be settling for “good” sound quality, which might suit you perfectly fine…but spending $120 and settling for anything less than great sound bothers me. (For $120, I don’t expect to be completely blown away by amazing sound quality, but I do expect it to be great.)

There’s also the fact that after an hour or so, I have to take a break because the top of my head gets uncomfortable from the weight. Again, for $120, it bothers me that I have to settle for something that gets uncomfortable after a relatively short period of time. I know there are headphones that are far more expensive, but still, $120 isn’t cheap and I expect a little bit more comfort.

My old pair of Sony MDR-CD570 headphones from 1995 with the soft, self-adjusting headband are more comfortable. Sony should’ve stayed with that design.

I do like the short cord and soft ear cushions. I like the relatively plain appearance (I’m not trying to make a fashion statement with my headphones). I like that with a couple of accessories, they make good home headphones, too. Getting a good full-size pair of portable and home headphones for $120 (plus another $15 or so for the extension and adapter) is a good deal.

You won’t find a better pair of full-size, closed-back, circumaural headphones that are portable for less than $175. However, you will find better headphones for use at home. Overall, if you want the best of both worlds (or as close as you’re going to get for a reasonable price), go ahead and buy the MDR-ZX700.

And if you own these headphones, please let me know your thoughts!

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading ...

Reward this post with a little PayPal donation:

Categories: Blog, Reviews | Comments (0)

Tags:

Beatles Review – Revolver Remastered CDs

posted by Rob on November 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm | Comments (12)

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 mono and stereo remastered CDs)

Revolver was The Beatles’ seventh album, originally released on August 5, 1966. Just like in my other remastered reviews, I’ve listened to the old stereo Revolver CD and the new mono and stereo remastered versions – as well as tracks from Yellow Submarine Songtrack and 1 – several times on my computer through headphones (Sony MDR-CD570) and on my home stereo system through speakers (Yamaha HTR-5540 receiver, Sony CDP-CE375 CD player, and EPI T/E 100 Series II speakers). My CD player is connected to my receiver using a digital cable. My headphones and speakers are able to reproduce clean, strong low frequencies, crisp, clear high frequencies, and an even tone in between. This isn’t the most high-end audiophile equipment ever created, but it’s a nice setup and allows me to study all of the details of the music.

How do the new remastered CDs compare to the original 1987 CD? To me, the ultimate Revolver album consists of tracks from all three versions, plus Yellow Submarine Songtrack. Read on…

The Packaging

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 mono and stereo remastered CDs, front) – click to enlarge

The remastered mono Revolver CD comes in a simple cardboard sleeve inside of a resealable clear plastic sleeve and features the original album artwork on the front and back. The disc itself comes in a plastic sleeve inside the cardboard sleeve. There’s also an Emitex paper sleeve the disc can go in, which I assume is a replica of the original vinyl record sleeve from 1966.

The remastered stereo CD comes in a foldout cardboard sleeve and features the original album artwork on the front and a slightly modified back:

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 mono and stereo remastered CDs, back) – click to enlarge

Inside the stereo foldout sleeve are more photos of the band, plus two pockets: one to hold a booklet featuring linear notes and photos and the other to hold the CD:

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 stereo remastered CD, inside) – click to enlarge

The disc itself now resembles the original Parlophone record label, as opposed to the 1987 disc’s no-frills treatment. Nice touch!

I like the cardboard sleeves because they introduce less plastic into our environment, but I know that if I handled them on a regular basis, they’d eventually get damaged and fall apart, whereas my plastic jewel cases from the 1980s are still in good shape. I don’t have to worry though because now that the CDs are ripped to my computer, I’ll hardly ever touch the sleeves (or the discs) again. From now on, I’ll listen to the songs on my computer, on my portable MP3 player, or by connecting my MP3 player to my stereo system.

The Remastering

The remastering on this album is very good, but could’ve been even slightly better. There’s some mild brickwall limiting, which is disappointing, but none of the peaks reach 0.0 dB, which is great, especially in today’s world of clipped and distorted music CDs. The highest peaks reach -0.32 dB on the stereo CD and -0.20 dB on the mono CD, which could still introduce distortion on some devices. Even so, this is far better mastering than any CD I’ve bought in the last decade. Here’s the waveform of the 2009 stereo remastered version of “Taxman”:

The Beatles “Taxman” stereo remastered waveform (2009) – click to enlarge

To compare, here’s the waveform from the 2009 mono remastered version of “Taxman”:

The Beatles “Taxman” mono remastered waveform (2009) – click to enlarge

Here’s the waveform from the original Revolver CD, released in stereo in 1987:

The Beatles “Taxman” 1987 stereo waveform – click to enlarge

When I adjust the peaks of the 1987 version to reach 0.0 dB, the average level is -16.76 decibels. That means the 2009 stereo version is missing 2.87 decibels of dynamic range and the 2009 mono version is missing 2.89 decibels compared to the old CD. This is disappointing because I wanted the remastered versions to preserve even more dynamic range than the old version, not less. The difference isn’t really noticeable though.

On average, the mono remastered CD is missing 1 dB of overall dynamic range compared to the Revolver CD from 1987. The stereo remastered CD is missing 1.5 dB. Again, it isn’t really noticeable.

The Songs

Here’s my rundown of the various CD versions of each song:

1. “Taxman”

MONO: The mono version sounds slightly distorted overall and lacks the high frequency clarity of the stereo version. It’s missing 2.9 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. While it makes more sense for the drums and bass to be centered, this mix sounds messy and cluttered at times. Overall, it sounds lo-fi and old-fashioned, like a dated 1960s recording, whereas the stereo version sounds clear and fresh, like a modern recording.

The cowbell comes in earlier than in the stereo versions.

STEREO: The 2009 remaster features a boost in the low and high frequencies and a slight cut in the mid-range frequencies, which results in a more even tone compared to the old 1987 version. There’s mild brickwall limiting in the left channel, but the song sounds crisper and fresher now, though technically it’s missing 2.9 dB of dynamic range compared to the 1987 CD.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
59 second MP3 file – 2.3 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

2. “Eleanor Rigby”

MONO: The mono version is much better than “Taxman,” but still not quite as clear as the stereo version. It’s missing 2 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

STEREO: The 2009 stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low and high frequencies and a slight cut in the mid-range frequencies. There’s a bit more presence and clarity now. It features nearly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD. The double-tracked vocal at the beginning of the first verse is still in this new remaster, since it was transferred from the original master tape that way. Fixing something like that would’ve required remixing or extensive editing, which this project did not involve.

The 1999 Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix is more balanced. Paul’s lead vocal is centered and the strings are panned in stereo. As a result, this version sounds more powerful and modern than the 2009 remaster. I actually prefer the tone of the vocals in the 2009 remaster, but the 1999 remix is the best sounding version overall, even though technically it’s missing 1.8 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

The 1 remaster from 2000 features even more of a boost in the high frequencies and a cut in the mid-range frequencies. It sounds thin and harsh and is the worst sounding version.

- – -

3. “I’m Only Sleeping”

MONO: The mono version lacks the high frequency clarity of the stereo version and is missing 1.1 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. The vocals are softer too, and feature a subtle doubling effect. The backwards electric guitar comes in at different points throughout the song, compared to the stereo version. There’s a slightly longer fade out, as well.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies and a slight cut in the mid-range and high frequencies. It features nearly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD. The bass is much stronger now. It might even be too strong.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo remastered 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
49 second MP3 file – 1.9 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

4. “Love You To”

MONO: The mono mix lacks the high frequency clarity found in the stereo version and is missing 1.9 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. It goes on for an extra eight seconds during the outro.

STEREO: A slight low frequency rumble in the background has been removed from the 2009 stereo remaster and there’s been a slight cut in the mid-range and high frequencies, resulting in a more even tone. The song sounds a bit cleaner now. There’s nearly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD.

The Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix is more balanced and sounds even clearer and more modern than the new stereo remaster. It’s the best sounding version and features roughly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD.

- – -

5. “Here, There, and Everywhere”

MONO: The mono mix features some slight distortion in spots and is missing 1.3 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, but it’s a very good, clear mix overall. The vocals are balanced better with the music. In the stereo version, the vocals are too loud. After listening to the three CDs, I prefer this mix.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies; the bass drum is a bit stronger now. This version is missing 2 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, but both versions sound very similar.

- – -

6. “Yellow Submarine”

MONO: The mono mix lacks the high frequency crispness of the stereo version. It sounds dull and lacks presence overall. The mono version features roughly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD. In this version, the song starts off with both the acoustic guitar and Ringo’s vocal, whereas the stereo version starts off with only Ringo’s vocal. During the last verse, John Lennon echos the lyric “life of ease,” which is missing in the stereo mix.

STEREO: A faint noise was removed from the left channel at the very beginning of the 2009 stereo remaster. The low and high frequencies have been boosted, resulting in a noticeable increase in presence and crispness overall. The bass drum and snare drum are more powerful. The acoustic guitar and Ringo’s vocal are bright and clear. Despite some mild brickwall limiting throughout and a 1.6 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, this is a big improvement and the best sounding version.

UPDATE November 19, 2009: For the first time ever, I noticed a tape noise after the verse with the sound effects. In the mono version, the splash of water at the end of that verse fades out quickly. I prefer the longer fade in the stereo version because the splash blends into Ringo’s vocal in the following verse. However, the longer fade also reveals the noise I’m talking about, during the word “live.” Here’s a clip:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
7 second MP3 file – 0.3 MB (right-click to save)

The noise is in the 1987 Revolver CD as well. I can’t believe I never noticed that before! Despite this little noise, I still think the 2009 stereo remaster is the best sounding version.

The Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix features a cut in the mid-range frequencies and lacks the prescence and energy of the remastered version. It sounds a bit muted and dull, as if too much noise reduction were applied, and is missing 3.7 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. For people who absolutely despise the hard panning in the stereo Revolver version, this remix will have to do.

The 1 version sounds like it had too much noise reduction applied and the low frequencies were over-emphasized. As a result, the overall tone sounds strange and the song lacks clarity. This is the worst sounding version and is missing 2.4 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
46 second MP3 file – 1.8 MB (right-click to save)

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
37 second MP3 file – 1.5 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

7. “She Said She Said”

MONO: In the mono mix, whenever John sings, the drums get soft as if the engineers were using side chain compression (ducking) while mixing. This mix sounds too messy and cluttered compared to the stereo version and is missing 1.6 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. There’s a noticeable edit at 1:13 at the end of “I said.”

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies, a cut in the high frequencies, and a 1.6 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. This version doesn’t sound as crisp and clear. For example, the snare drum isn’t quite as audible now. I prefer the brighter 1987 version.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
49 second MP3 file – 1.9 MB (right-click to save)

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
46 second MP3 file – 1.8 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

8. “Good Day Sunshine”

MONO: The mono mix features some slight distortion in spots, but is a very good, clear mix overall and features roughly the same amount of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. I still prefer the stereo mix though. Instead of fading out at the end, the drums stop after four bass drum beats.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low and high frequencies. The song sounds a bit more powerful and clear now, despite a 3.2 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
50 second MP3 file – 1.9 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

9. “And Your Bird Can Sing”

MONO: Like “Taxman” and “She Said She Said,” there’s a bit too much going on in the mono mix, resulting in a slightly cluttered sound overall. This version features roughly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low frequencies and a 1.3 dB decrease in dynamic range. Still, it sounds nearly identical to the old 1987 CD.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
53 second MP3 file – 2.0 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

10. “For No One”

MONO: There’s some slight distortion here and there throughout the mono mix, but it sounds good overall despite the 1 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. I like this mix much better than the stereo version.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low and high frequencies and roughly the same amount of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. The song sounds slightly clearer now, but the extreme stereo panning is annoying to listen to, even for me. In this case, I prefer the mono mix.

- – -

11. “Doctor Robert”

MONO: This is a very good, clear mono mix. I still prefer the stereo version, but this one sounds almost as good. Sometimes the vocals get drowned out by the lead guitar. There’s a 1.9 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies and a slight boost in the high frequencies. Despite a 1.1 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, this is the best sounding version.

- – -

12. “I Want to Tell You”

MONO: This is another good, clear mono mix. I still prefer the stereo version, but this one sounds almost as good. There’s a 1.7 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low and high frequencies. The song sounds crisper and clearer now and the snare drum is more audible. Despite a 1.3 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, this is the best sounding version.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
50 second MP3 file – 1.9 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

13. “Got to Get You into My Life”

MONO: The mono mix lacks some high frequency clarity compared to the stereo mix, but I enjoy listening to this one more. I’ve always found the stereo mix annoying. This version features roughly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD and goes on for an extra nine seconds during the outro.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low and high frequencies. Despite a 2 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, both versions sound nearly identical. The brass and wind instruments in the right channel are too loud and stick out too much. I usually defend the Beatles’ stereo mixes, but in this case I prefer the mono mix.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
59 second MP3 file – 2.3 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

14. “Tomorrow Never Knows”

MONO: The mono mix isn’t quite as crisp and powerful as the stereo mix, but it still sounds very good overall. I prefer the wide double-tracked vocal effect in the stereo version. The mono version features an additional 2 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. The tape loops come in at different times in certain spots in the mono version.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies, a slight cut in the high frequencies, and roughly the same amount of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

The Mini-Documentary

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 stereo remastered CD, mini-documentary) – click to enlarge

Included on the stereo remastered Revolver CD is a 3:55 mini-documentary that can be played on a computer. It’s comprised of moving photographs, brief studio chatter, comments from George Martin, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, and George Harrison, and one short film clip near the end. The video can be played in a small window or in a much larger “fullscreen” mode.

Even for a huge Beatles fan like me who is usually fascinated by The Beatles’ studio banter, this documentary is a letdown, devoid of any interesting insight or facts.

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 stereo remastered CD, mini-documentary) – click to enlarge

As with the other stereo Beatles remastered discs, the mini-documentary is a decent inclusion, but I really bought the new CDs to listen to the music.

Closing Comments

Is the 2009 stereo Revolver remaster worth buying if you already own the original 1987 CD? For the most part, yes. Most of the tracks sound a bit clearer, fresher, and more powerful now. The difference isn’t quite as dramatic as I was hoping for, but it’s enough of an improvement to warrant a $12 purchase.

To me, the only song that sounds slightly worse is “She Said She Said,” with its reduced high frequencies. I prefer the crisper, brighter version on the old CD.

I had listened to a crackly, worn mono version of Revolver on vinyl several years ago, but this was the first time I experienced it in high fidelity. After all of the hype I’ve come across regarding the Beatles’ mono albums, I was expecting to be completely blown away by the supposedly more powerful sound and superior mixing. However, I found some of the mono versions to sound old, cluttered, sloppy, and a bit distorted compared to the stereo ones. I know that the Beatles supervised and approved the mono mixes themselves, thus many people feel those mixes are automatically superior, but I disagree.

In terms of sound quality, tone, and overall balance, it sounds as if more care was put into the stereo mixes. The mono mixes sound like the engineers saturated the master tapes to get the loudest sound possible, perhaps at the Beatles’ insistence. The sound is often too dense and sometimes slightly distorted. The stereo mixes usually feature much better sound quality and clarity and the instruments and vocals are usually more balanced with each other.

Of course, there are exceptions. The stereo version of “For No One” is empty due to awkward hard panning and is especially annoying to listen to in headphones. The mono version is much more enjoyable. I also prefer the mono version of “Here, There, and Everywhere,” which features a better balance between the vocals and instruments and sounds stronger. Likewise for “Got to Get You into My Life.” The blaring horns in the stereo version aren’t quite as prominent in the mono mix, which sounds better as a result.

Three songs from Revolver were completely remixed from the original multitrack tapes on the 1999 Yellow Submarine Songtrack CD. The remixed “Yellow Submarine” sounds dull and lacks the energy found in the original stereo version, but “Eleanor Rigby” and “Love You To” sound much better.

The 24-bit remastered versions of “Eleanor Rigby” and “Yellow Submarine” from the 2000 1 greatest hits CD sound awful and should be avoided.

If I could only chose one version of Revolver to listen to, it’d be the remastered stereo CD. That isn’t the case though, so I’ll create my own ultimate version of the album by choosing songs from the various releases:

1. “Taxman” – stereo remaster
2. “Eleanor Rigby” – Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix
3. “I’m Only Sleeping” – stereo remaster
4. “Love You To” – Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix
5. “Here, There, and Everywhere” – mono remaster
6. “Yellow Submarine” – stereo remaster
7. “She Said She Said” – original 1987 CD
8. “Good Day Sunshine” – stereo remaster
9. “And Your Bird Can Sing” – stereo remaster
10. “For No One” – mono remaster
11. “Doctor Robert” – stereo remaster
12. “I Want to Tell You” – stereo remaster
13. “Got to Get You into My Life” – mono remaster
14. “Tomorrow Never Knows” – stereo remaster

As with Abbey Road, the biggest difference between the old and new stereo CDs is loudness. The peaks in the remastered CD are higher than in the 1987 one, so basically, if you turn the volume up a notch or two while playing your old 1987 Revolver CD, it’ll sound somewhat close to the remastered version. Don’t get me wrong, the new stereo CD definitely sounds better overall, but if you can’t afford it or don’t want to buy it, the old CD still holds up pretty well.

(By comparison, the new remastered versions of Please Please Me sound vastly superior to the original 1987 CD.)

Check out my other Beatles remastered CD reviews:

Beatles Review – Please Please Me Remastered CDs
Beatles Review – Abbey Road Remastered CD

Rate this post:

(11 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)

Loading ...

Reward this post with a little PayPal donation:

Categories: Blog, Reviews | Comments (12)

Tags: Beatles, CD, clips, compact disc, comparison, mastering, mono, music, remaster, remastered, review, Revolver, samples, sound quality, stereo

Beatles Review – Please Please Me Remastered CDs

posted by Rob on September 23, 2009 at 12:40 am | Comments (27)

Please Please Me by The Beatles (2009 mono and stereo remastered CDs)

Please Please Me was The Beatles’ first album, originally released in England on March 22, 1963. Just like in my Abbey Road remastered review, I’ve listened to the old mono Please Please Me CD and the new mono and stereo remastered versions – as well as the stereo versions of each song from the 2004 and 2006 The Capitol Albums boxed sets – several times on my computer through headphones (Sony MDR-CD570) and on my home stereo system through speakers (Yamaha HTR-5540 receiver, JVC XV-523 DVD/CD player, and EPI T/E 100 Series II speakers). Just to recap, the audio from my DVD player is connected to my receiver using a digital cable. My headphones and speakers are able to reproduce clean, strong low frequencies, crisp, clear high frequencies, and an even tone in between. I know this isn’t the most expensive, high-end audiophile equipment ever created, but it’s still a nice setup and allows me to study all of the details of the music I’m listening to.

While the remastered Abbey Road CD sounded very similar to the 1987 one and left me disappointed, the remastered Please Please Me CDs sound mostly better than the previously released one. Read on…