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

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:
Download audio file (taxman-mono-stereo.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (im-only-sl-stereo-1987-2009.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (yellow-sub-stereo-noise.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (yellow-sub-stereo-1987-2009.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (yellow-sub-mono-stereo.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (she-said-stereo-1987-2009.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (she-said-mono-stereo.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (good-day-stereo-1987-2009.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (and-your-bird-mono-stereo.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (i-want-to-stereo-1987-2009.mp3)

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:
Download audio file (got-to-get-you-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

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…

The Packaging

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

The remastered mono Please Please Me 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 1963:

Please Please Me by The Beatles (2009 mono remastered CD, Emitex paper sleeve) – click to enlarge

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

Please Please Me by The Beatles (2009 mono vs. 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:

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

Please Please Me 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!

Again, 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, listen to them on my portable MP3 player, or connect my MP3 player to my stereo system and listen to them that way.

The Remastering

The remastering on this album is probably the best it’s going to get. There’s no brickwall limiting (for the most part) and 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 -0.3 dB on the stereo CD and -0.09 dB on the mono CD, which could still introduce distortion on some devices, but this is far better mastering than any CD I’ve bought in the last decade or so. Here’s the waveform of the 2009 stereo remastered version of “Twist and Shout”:

The Beatles “Twist and Shout” stereo remastered waveform (2009) – click to enlarge

To compare, here’s the waveform from the stereo remastered version of “Twist and Shout” on The Early Beatles CD, released in 2006 in The Capitol Albums, Volume 2 boxed set:

The Beatles “Twist and Shout” The Early Beatles stereo remastered waveform (2006) – click to enlarge

The Capitol Albums boxed sets were definitely victims of the loudness war. That version of “Twist and Shout” is missing 3.56 decibels of dynamic range compared to the 2009 remastered version, plus the low and high frequencies have been boosted too much.

Here’s the waveform from the original mono Please Please Me CD, released in 1987:

The Beatles “Twist and Shout” 1987 mono waveform – click to enlarge

When I adjust the peaks of the 1987 version to reach 0.0 dB, the average level is -12.08 decibels. That means the 2009 mono version features an additional 0.41 decibels of dynamic range and the stereo version features an additional 2.14 decibels. That’s great!

On average, the mono remastered CD features an additional 0.5 dB of overall dynamic range compared to the Please Please Me CD from 1987 and the stereo remastered CD features an additional 3 dB of overall dynamic range compared to the stereo The Early Beatles CD from 2006.

The Songs

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

1. “I Saw Her Standing There”

MONO: The 1987 and 2009 remastered versions sound very similar and feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range. The remastered version has a slightly longer fadeout, which reveals a faint click or drum stick noise at the very end.

STEREO: The version on the Meet the Beatles CD from The Capitol Albums, Volume 1 boxed set is severely compressed and features a significant boost in the low and high frequencies, which makes the song sound too harsh and causes a low frequency rumble throughout. The 2009 remastered version features an additional 3.12 dB of dynamic range and the rumble is no longer present. It’s the better sounding version.

A brief drumstick click or hi-hat tap in the left channel at the very beginning of the 2006 stereo version has been removed in the 2009 stereo version.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the stereo 2006 version (first) to the stereo remastered 2009 version (second). In the very beginning of this clip, you can hear the click/tap in the left channel:

Listen:
Download audio file (i-saw-her-stereo-2006-2009.mp3)

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

- – -

2. “Misery”

MONO: The 2009 remastered version features a boost in the low and high frequencies. It sounds a bit crisper and more powerful than the 1987 version. Also, the 1987 version features minor tape dropout in the intro, which has been fixed in the 2009 version. The 2009 version features a slightly longer fade-out, which reveals a faint noise at the very end, like someone dropped something. Both versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range.

STEREO: The remastered version sounds very good, but I noticed some hard limiting in the right channel during the piano sections. It’s fairly minor, but I feel the need to point it out. “Misery” hasn’t been released in stereo on CD before, so I have no other version to compare this one to.

- – -

3. “Anna (Go To Him)”

MONO: The 2009 remastered version has a slight boost in the high frequencies and sounds a bit clearer now. Both versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range.

STEREO: The version on The Early Beatles CD from The Capitol Albums, Volume 2 boxed set is severely compressed and features an extreme boost in the low and high frequencies. That version sounds crisp and powerful, but a bit harsh. The 2009 version features an additional 4.86 dB of dynamic range and less distortion. It doesn’t sound as modern or as forceful as the Capitol version, but it’s easier on the ears.

Part of me prefers the Capitol version’s more rock-oriented equalization, even though I know the new remastered version is technically far superior. Maybe I’ll change my mind as I get used to the new version.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the stereo 2006 version (first) to the stereo remastered 2009 version (second):

Listen:
Download audio file (anna-go-to-stereo-2006-2009.mp3)

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

- – -

4. “Chains”

MONO: The 2009 remastered version has a boost in the high frequencies and sounds clearer now. The vocals and hi-hats are crisper and have more prescence. This version is much better than the old 1987 version. Also, the fadeout is slightly longer now. Both versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range.

STEREO: The version on The Early Beatles CD features an extreme boost in the low and high frequencies, so at first, it seems clearer and more powerful than the new 2009 version. However, the 2009 version features an additional 3.03 dB of dynamic range, less distortion, and sounds less harsh and aggressive.

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

Listen:
Download audio file (chains-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

- – -

5. “Boys”

MONO: The 2009 remastered version has a slight boost in the high frequencies and sounds slightly clearer than the old 1987 version. It also features an additional 0.83 dB of dynamic range.

STEREO: The version on The Early Beatles CD features an extreme boost in the low and high frequencies, so at first, it seems clearer and more powerful than the new 2009 version. However, the 2009 version features an additional 5.14 dB of dynamic range, less distortion, and sounds less harsh and aggressive. Here’s an audio clip comparing the stereo 2006 version (first) to the stereo remastered 2009 version (second):

Listen:
Download audio file (boys-stereo-2006-2009.mp3)

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

- – -

6. “Ask Me Why”

MONO: The 1987 and 2009 remastered versions sound nearly identical, but the remaster seems to have a very slight boost in the high frequencies. Minor vocal plosives around 0:52 and 1:52 (the “p” in “happened”) were reduced in the remastered version. Both versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range.

I noticed something weird in the 2009 version. From 1:26 to 2:10, I hear an intermittent grating, high-pitched tape defect or distortion that isn’t present in the 1987 version or the stereo version. It sounds similar to fingernails scratching a blackboard. Does anyone else hear that noise? It’s faint, but it’s most noticeable around 1:26 and around 2:07.

STEREO: The version on The Early Beatles CD is severely compressed and features an extreme boost in the low and high frequencies, which makes the song sound too harsh. The 2009 version features an additional 3.88 dB of dynamic range and less distortion. It’s the better sounding version.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the mono 2009 version (second). Listen for the weird high-pitched distortion around 27 seconds into the clip and onward (headphones should help):

Listen:
Download audio file (ask-me-why-mono-1987-2009.mp3)

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

- – -

7. “Please Please Me”

MONO: The 2009 remastered version is much, much clearer than the 1987 version, especially in the high frequencies. The tone is more evenly balanced now, there’s more presence, and there’s less distortion. The 1987 version had over-emphasized mid-range frequencies, weak high frequencies, and sounded awful, as if it were recorded off an old transistor radio. Was the 1987 version the result of too much noise reduction? If so, that doesn’t make sense because there isn’t an unusual amount of tape hiss in the remastered version. Both versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range.

STEREO: The version on The Early Beatles CD features a boost in the low and high frequencies. This makes the song sound more modern, but it also makes it sound too harsh. The 2009 version features an additional 2.52 dB of dynamic range and much less distortion. As a result, the harmonica overdubs are more noticeable now, but it’s the better sounding version overall.

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

Listen:
Download audio file (please-pleas-mono-1987-2009.mp3)

Download:
58 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

8. “Love Me Do”

MONO: The 2009 remastered version sounds clearer than the 1987 version. Like “Please Please Me,” the tone is more evenly balanced, there’s more presence, and everything sounds more defined and crisp. Again, it seems like the 1987 version had too much noise reduction applied, which is strange because there isn’t an unusual amount of tape hiss in the remastered version. Either that, or the tone in the old version was just very poorly equalized. It sounds much better now. Both versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range.

STEREO: A stereo mix of “Love Me Do” doesn’t exist. In the version on The Early Beatles CD, the high frequencies have been cut in the left channel and the low frequencies have been cut in the right channel in an attempt to simulate stereo. This mock stereo technique doesn’t work and ends up sounding annoying, especially in headphones.

The mono remastered version on the 1 CD from 2000 sounds very good, but is slightly thin compared to the 2009 version. This new version is probably the best sounding version we’re going to get. Just to clarify, the stereo remastered Please Please Me CD features “Love Me Do” in mono.

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

Listen:
Download audio file (love-me-do-mono-1987-2009.mp3)

Download:
42 second MP3 file – 1.6 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

9. “P.S. I Love You”

MONO: The 2009 remastered version features a boost in the high frequencies and a more balanced tone overall. It sounds much clearer and fresher than the old 1987 version. Once again, my guess is too much noise reduction was applied to the 1987 version, though there isn’t an unusual amount of tape hiss in the remastered version, so I don’t understand why. Both versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range.

The remastered version fades out slightly faster than the 1987 version.

STEREO: A stereo mix of “P.S. I Love You” doesn’t exist. In the version on The Early Beatles CD, the high frequencies have been cut in the left channel and the low frequencies have been cut in the right channel in an attempt to simulate stereo. Like that version of “Love Me Do,” this mock stereo technique doesn’t work and ends up sounding annoying, especially in headphones.

Again, this new 2009 version is probably the best sounding version we’re going to get. Just to clarify, the stereo remastered Please Please Me CD features “P.S. I Love You” in mono.

- – -

10. “Baby It’s You”

MONO: The 1987 and 2009 remastered versions sound nearly identical and feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range. The remastered version has a slight boost in the high frequencies and sounds slightly clearer now. The remastered version also features a slightly longer fadeout.

STEREO: The version on The Early Beatles CD is over-compressed and features a significant boost in the low and high frequencies, which makes the song sound too harsh. The 2009 version features an additional 2.32 dB of dynamic range and less distortion. It’s the better sounding version.

- – -

11. “Do You Want to Know a Secret”

MONO: The 1987 and 2009 remastered versions sound nearly identical and feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range. Low frequency rumble/hum was removed from the intro in the remastered version.

STEREO: As usual, the version on The Early Beatles CD is over-compressed and features a significant boost in the low and high frequencies, which makes the song sound too harsh. The 2009 version features an additional 2.11 dB of dynamic range and less distortion. A low frequency rumble/hum has been removed from the intro as well. It’s the better sounding version.

- – -

12. “A Taste of Honey”

MONO: The 2009 remastered version features a very slight boost in the high frequencies and a slight cut in the mid-range frequencies, plus it features an additional 2.5 dB of dynamic range. As a result, it sounds a bit crisper and more balanced than the 1987 version.

STEREO: As usual, the version on The Early Beatles CD is over-compressed and features a significant boost in the low and high frequencies, which makes it sound too harsh. The 2009 version features an additional 2.25 dB of dynamic range and less distortion. It’s the better sounding version.

A faint creaking noise during the fadeout in The Early Beatles CD version has been removed from the 2009 remaster.

- – -

13. “There’s a Place”

MONO: The 1987 and 2009 remastered versions sound nearly identical, though the remastered version features an additional 1.4 dB of dynamic range.

STEREO: The remastered version sounds very good, just like the other songs on the new CD. “There’s a Place” hasn’t been released in stereo on CD before, so I have no other version to compare this one to.

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

Listen:
Download audio file (theres-a-place-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

- – -

14. “Twist and Shout”

MONO: The remastered version has a slight boost in the low and high frequencies and sounds a bit clearer and more powerful than the old 1987 version. Both versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range.

STEREO: The version on The Early Beatles CD is severely compressed and features an extreme boost in the low and high frequencies. In a way, it seems clearer and more powerful than the new 2009 version. However, the 2009 version features an additional 3.56 dB of dynamic range and less distortion. As a result, it’s more pleasing to listen to.

The Mini-Documentary

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

Included on the stereo remastered Please Please Me CD is a 3:50 mini-documentary that can be played on a computer. It’s comprised of film clips, moving photographs, brief studio chatter, and comments from George Martin, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, and George Harrison. The video can be played in a small window or in a much larger “fullscreen” mode.

For someone like me who’s a huge Beatles fan, the best part of the documentary was getting to hear the few snippets of studio chatter and seeing several seconds of The Beatles performing at The Cavern.

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

As with Abbey Road, the mini-documentary is a nice inclusion, but don’t expect more than a few interesting photos and sound bites. I don’t mind though, because I bought the new CDs to listen to the music.

Closing Comments

After I reviewed the new Abbey Road CD, part of me was afraid to listen to the rest of the remastered albums. Would they all sound so similar to the original 1987 CDs? Did I waste my money by buying all of these new versions? In the case of Please Please Me, I’m happy to report the answer is no.

The new mono and stereo CDs sound great, but they aren’t 100% perfect. There’s a touch of brickwall limiting in the stereo version of “Misery.” This is the first time “Misery” is available on CD in stereo, which is great, but I still have to point out the minor shortcoming. There’s also a grating, high-pitched tape defect or distortion in parts of the mono version of “Ask Me Why,” which isn’t present in the 1987 version or the stereo remastered version. It’s strange and I really want to know if anyone else notices it.

Either way, I’ll be replacing the new mono “Ask Me Why” with the 1987 version on my portable MP3 player. They sound very similar otherwise, so it’s not a big deal.

Should you drop everything, rush to the store, and immediately buy this new CD? If you’re a fan of the stereo mixes, then yes. The stereo CD sounds great overall. Compared to the versions in The Capitol Albums boxed sets, the tone is more balanced and the album has been mastered much more sensitively, preserving several decibels more dynamic range.

If you aren’t a fan of the stereo mixes and you don’t plan on buying the mono boxed set, then you’ll have to be satisfied with the mostly inferior 1987 CD. Other than the weird noise throughout the second half of “Ask Me Why,” the mono remastered CD sounds crisper, clearer, and fresher, especially “Please Please Me,” “Love Me Do,” and “P.S. I Love You.” It’s too bad it isn’t available separately.

I still prefer the stereo mixes because I can hear the instruments more clearly and there’s a sense of space that mono just can’t provide. However, these clearer mono mixes are growing on me and are much more enjoyable to listen to than the 1987 versions. At this point, it’s a matter of personal preference, as both remastered versions sound fantastic overall.

With Abbey Road, the biggest difference between the old and new CDs was loudness. With Please Please Me, the loudness between the 1987 CD and the new 2009 CDs is very similar. In this case, the biggest difference is an increase in clarity – some songs much more than others.

My faith in this whole remastering project has been restored and I’m excited to compare the rest of the CDs. I’ll post my next review soon!

I just got back from the post office after waiting in line for what seemed like an hour. Finally, I have the Beatles mono and stereo remastered CD boxed sets:

Flickr – Unboxing my Beatles boxed sets, Jersey City, NJ 9/17/09

The two sets contain 29 CDs in all, plus one booklet and one DVD. The mono set contains 11 albums (13 CDs) and the booklet. The stereo set contains 14 albums (16 CDs) and the mini-documentary DVD. (The Beatles and Past Masters are double albums included in both sets.)

The mono CDs and booklet come packaged in a square glossy white box. The section that actually holds the discs and booklet slides in and out. It’s clean and simple.

The stereo CDs and documentary DVD come packaged in a rectangular glossy black foldout box. There are little magnets embedded in the flap and the side of the box, so it “snaps” shut. I like that. The discs are stored in two wells, each one featuring a ribbon that can be pulled up for easy access to the discs at the bottom without ruining their cardboard sleeves. I like that, too.

It turns out the CDs in the stereo boxed set come in the same foldout cardboard sleeves as the individual versions. The mono CDs come in simple cardboard sleeves inside resealable clear plastic sleeves.

As you can see in my Flickr photo set, the mono and stereo versions of the Beatles’ albums feature different layouts on the back. It seems like the backs of the mono CDs feature the original vinyl artwork, while the backs of most of the stereo CDs have been redesigned. Am I correct?

2009 mono (left) vs. stereo (right) CD backs, click each to enlarge

I still have some work I need to finish this afternoon, but I will post my review of another one of the albums tomorrow. Just like in my Abbey Road review, I’ll post plenty of pictures, waveforms, and audio comparison samples for each CD.

Which album should I tackle next?

I still have about a week to go before my Beatles boxed sets arrive, but in the meantime, I broke down and bought the remastered version of Abbey Road (originally released in 1969) for $13 at J&R Music World, just so I’ll know what to expect from this whole project and to let everyone know how it compares to the original 1987 CD.

I’ve listened to the old Abbey Road CD and this new remastered version 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). The audio from my DVD player is connected to my receiver using an optical digital cable. My headphones and speakers are able to reproduce clean, strong low frequencies, crisp, clear high frequencies, and an even tone in between. True, 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.

With all of the hype and praise surrounding the Beatles remasters, I was expecting to be blown away by the improvement in sound quality on the 2009 CD vs. the 1987 CD. As much as I want to believe that this new version is a huge improvement, it simply isn’t. A few of the songs sound slightly better, a few of the songs sound identical, and a few of the songs sound slightly worse. Read on…

The Packaging

Abbey Road by The Beatles (1987 CD vs. 2009 remastered CD, front) – click to enlarge

I don’t know how it’s packaged in the boxed set (UPDATE September 22, 2009: the stereo CDs are packaged the same individually as they are in the boxed set), but the individual remastered Abbey Road CD comes in a foldout cardboard sleeve and features the original album artwork on the front and back. The CD that was released in 1987 features a slightly cropped version of the front of the album and a severely cropped version of the back:

Abbey Road by The Beatles (1987 CD vs. 2009 remastered CD, back) – click to enlarge

I like the cardboard sleeve because it introduces less plastic into our environment, but I know that if I handled it on a regular basis, it’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 CD is ripped to my computer, I’ll hardly ever touch the sleeve (or the disc) again. From now on, I’ll listen to the songs on my computer, listen to them on my portable MP3 player, or connect my MP3 player to my stereo system and listen to them that way.

Inside the 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. It also includes an advertisement for the boxed sets and The Beatles: Rock Band video game:

Abbey Road by The Beatles (2009 remastered CD, inside) – click to enlarge

Abbey Road by The Beatles (2009 remastered CD, inside) – click to enlarge

The disc itself now resembles “Side 1″ of an old Apple record label, as opposed to the 1987 disc’s no-frills treatment. Nice touch!

The Remastering

On a technical level, the remastering on this album has put my mind at ease regarding the loudness war. There’s no obvious brickwall limiting and 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 on this album reach -0.24 dB, which could still introduce distortion on some devices, but this is far better mastering than any CD I’ve bought in the last decade or so. Here’s the waveform of the 2009 remastered version of “Come Together”:

The Beatles “Come Together” remastered waveform (2009) – click to enlarge

To compare, here’s the waveform of “The Fact Remains” from Juliana Hatfield’s 2008 CD How to Walk Away:

Juliana Hatfield “The Fact Remains” waveform (2008) – click to enlarge

As you can see, “Come Together” by The Beatles was properly mastered and “The Fact Remains” by Juliana Hatfield wasn’t. “The Fact Remains” is a catchy, straightforward pop rock song, not a hard-core heavy metal song, so why is it 3.26 decibels louder than “Come Together”? That extra loudness came at the expense of dynamic range and sound quality. It’s another case of a great song ruined by poor mastering.

Here’s the waveform from the digitally remastered version of “Come Together” on the Beatles 1 CD, released in 2000:

The Beatles “Come Together” 1 remastered waveform (2000) – click to enlarge

The 1 CD was definitely a victim of the loudness war. That version of “Come Together” is missing 3.57 decibels of dynamic range compared to the 2009 remastered version and the peaks reach -0.01 dB instead of -0.37 dB. It’s even slightly louder than “The Fact Remains.” Additionally, there’s a boost in the mid-range frequencies that isn’t present in the 1987 or 2009 versions. This is easily the worst sounding version of the three.

For comparison’s sake, here’s the waveform from the original Abbey Road CD, released in 1987:

The Beatles “Come Together” 1987 waveform – click to enlarge

When I adjust the peaks of the 1987 version to reach 0.0 dB, the average level is -15.36 decibels. That means the 1987 version features an additional 1.37 decibels of dynamic range vs. the 2009 remaster. In theory, this is disappointing because I wanted the remastered version to preserve even more dynamic range than the old version, not less. In reality though, the difference is so small that it isn’t noticeable.

The Songs

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

1. “Come Together”

The 1987 CD version features the most dynamic range and has the most even, balanced tone. The low frequencies are clear and the song sounds crisp and alive. The 2009 remastered version features almost as much dynamic range as the 1987 version and sounds nearly identical. I noticed a very slight boost in the low frequencies and a very slight cut in the high frequencies. Overall, the bass and drums are slightly less defined and the song is slightly less crisp. This version still sounds good, but it isn’t an improvement over the old version.

The 1 version from 2000 features the least dynamic range and the mid-range frequencies have been boosted. As a result, the drums and bass lack the warmth and impact from the 1987 version and the song lacks clarity overall. The bluesy, mysterious magic is gone. This is the worst sounding version of the three.

- – -

2. “Something”

The 2009 version features just as much dynamic range as the 1987 version. I noticed a very slight boost in low frequencies, high frequencies, and overall presence, resulting in a slight improvement over the old version. The snare drum and vocals are definitely crisper now. Also, it’s barely noticeable, but the left channel is slightly louder and the right channel is slightly softer than before.

Again, the 1 version from 2000 features the least dynamic range out of the three.

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

Listen:
Download audio file (something-1987-2009-clip.mp3)

Download:
30 second MP3 file – 1.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

3. “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”

The 2009 and 1987 versions sound almost identical and feature nearly the same amount of dynamic range. The remaster features a slight boost in the low frequencies and a slight cut in the high frequencies.

- – -

4. “Oh! Darling”

The remastered version features nearly as much dynamic range as the 1987 version. The tone is slightly more balanced, with a tiny boost in the low frequencies and a tiny cut in the mid-range and high frequencies. The new version is a minor improvement over the old version, but it’s barely noticeable. Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the remastered 2009 version (second):

Listen:
Download audio file (oh-darling-1987-2009-clip.mp3)

Download:
34 second MP3 file – 1.3 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

5. “Octopus’s Garden”

Once again, the remastered version sounds almost identical to the 1987 version and both feature the same amount of dynamic range. The remastered version features a slight boost in the high frequencies. Also, the left channel is slightly louder and the right channel is slightly softer than before, so the lead guitar is more centered now. I suppose the 2009 version is an improvement overall, but just barely.

- – -

6. “I Want You (She’s So Heavy)”

Even though the remastered version is missing 1.35 dB of dynamic range compared to the 1987 version, they both sound nearly identical.

Also, one of my readers Wayne pointed out to me: from roughly 16 seconds to 17.5 seconds, the 1987 version features an extremely subtle hum in the low frequencies that was removed from the 2009 remastered version. When I listen very closely to the old version, I can hear the faint hum and Ringo keeping the beat softly in the left channel during the rest after John’s “I want you…” In the new version, the hum is gone, which is fine, but Ringo’s soft tapping has become practically inaudible. It doesn’t ruin the song at all, but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the remastered 2009 version (second). Listen closely for Ringo’s tapping around six seconds in:

Listen:
Download audio file (i-want-you-1987-2009-clip.mp3)

Download:
27 second MP3 file – 1.0 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

7. “Here Comes the Sun”

The remastered version is missing 2.05 dB of dynamic range compared to the 1987 version. There’s also a very slight boost in the low frequencies. Overall though, both versions sound nearly identical.

- – -

8. “Because”

The remastered and 1987 versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range. Overall, both versions sound nearly identical.

- – -

9. “You Never Give Me Your Money”

Even though the remastered version is missing 0.95 dB of dynamic range compared to the 1987 version, they both sound nearly identical.

- – -

10. “Sun King”

In this case, the remastered version features a 0.78 dB increase in dynamic range compared to the 1987 version. Overall, both versions sound nearly identical.

- – -

11. “Mean Mr. Mustard”

The remastered version is missing 1.48 dB of dynamic range compared to the 1987 version. There’s also a slight cut in the high frequencies. As a result, the song doesn’t sound as crisp as the old version, especially the drums. Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the remastered 2009 version (second):

Listen:
Download audio file (mean-mr-must-1987-2009-clip.mp3)

Download:
32 second MP3 file – 1.3 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

12. “Polythene Pam”

The remastered and 1987 versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range. There’s a very slight cut in the high frequencies, but both versions sound nearly identical.

- – -

13. “She Came in Through the Bathroom Window”

Again, the remastered and 1987 versions feature the same amount of dynamic range. In the remastered version, there’s a slight boost in the low frequencies and a slight cut in the high frequencies. I noticed the remastered version sounds duller than the 1987 version. The old version sounds crisper and punchier, especially the drums, percussion, and vocals. Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the remastered 2009 version (second):

Listen:
Download audio file (she-came-in-t-1987-2009-clip.mp3)

Download:
34 second MP3 file – 1.3 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

14. “Golden Slumbers”

Even though the remastered version is missing 0.82 dB of dynamic range compared to the 1987 version, they sound nearly identical.

- – -

15. “Carry That Weight”

Even though the remastered version is missing 0.7 dB of dynamic range compared to the 1987 version, they sound nearly identical.

- – -

16. “The End”

The remastered version is missing 1.19 dB of dynamic range compared to the 1987 version. There’s also a slight boost in the low frequencies and a slight cut in the mid-range frequencies. Also, the left channel is slightly louder and the right channel is slightly softer than before.

Overall, the section with the guitar solos doesn’t sound as crisp now. The three guitars sound slightly duller and quieter, the snare drum isn’t as defined, and the hi-hats have a bit less presence. This version isn’t bad, but it isn’t quite as clear and exciting as the old one. Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the remastered 2009 version (second):

Listen:
Download audio file (the-end-1987-2009-clip.mp3)

Download:
35 second MP3 file – 1.3 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

17. “Her Majesty”

In this case, the remastered version features a 1.4 dB increase in dynamic range compared to the 1987 version. Overall, both versions sound nearly identical.

The Mini-Documentary

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

Included on the remastered Abbey Road CD is a 3:53 mini-documentary that can be played on a computer. It’s comprised of film clips, moving photographs, brief studio outtakes, and comments from Paul McCartney, George Martin, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, and George Harrison. The video can be played in a small window or in a much larger “fullscreen” mode.

For someone like me who’s a huge Beatles fan, the best part of the documentary was getting to hear outtakes I’ve never heard before. I’m fascinated by that kind of behind-the-scenes audio from their recording sessions and would love it if more was available. I know most people would find this pointless and borderline psychotic, but I bet I could listen to every Beatles tape in EMI’s vault from beginning to end, take after take, and not get bored.

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

The mini-documentary is a nice inclusion, but don’t expect more than a few interesting photos and sound bites. It’s okay though, I bought the CD to listen to the music.

Closing Comments

The Beatles remasters have been praised so much these last two weeks that I was expecting to experience this album like never before. I wanted so badly for that to be true, but it just isn’t the case. I was planning on posting waveform comparison images of every song from both versions of the album, but they look so similar to each other after being normalized that there’s no point.

Yes, three songs sound slightly better now (“Something,” “Oh! Darling,” and “Octopus’s Garden”), but three songs sound slightly worse (“Mean Mr. Mustard,” “She Came in Through the Bathroom Window,” and “The End”). I’m on the fence about “Come Together.” I prefer the slightly more defined bass and drums in the 1987 version, but I know that a lot of people prefer more emphasized bass these days, even if it means sacrificing some low end clarity.

Should you drop everything, rush to the store, and immediately buy this new CD? Not necessarily. If you already own the old Abbey Road CD, you’re fine. You aren’t missing out on anything major, which means either the new CD could’ve been mastered better or the old CD was mastered almost perfectly.

The reviewers and fans who claim this new version sounds better than ever haven’t listened to the old version recently, because that version still sounds fantastic. The biggest difference between the two CDs is loudness. Most of the songs on both versions feature roughly the same amount of dynamic range, but the peaks in the remastered CD are higher than in the 1987 one. What does that mean? Basically, if you turn the volume up a notch or two while playing your 1987 Abbey Road CD, it’ll mostly sound just as good as (and in a few cases better than) the remastered version.

At first, I was disappointed that this new, hyped up version sounded almost identical to the supposedly inferior 1987 version, but then I realized the Beatles’ earlier albums probably benefited from the remastering much more than Abbey Road did. I can only assume albums like Please Please Me, With the Beatles, and Beatles for Sale were mastered more sensitively than their Capitol Albums Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 counterparts and were transferred from even better sources. I have a feeling those will be some of the real gems of this four-year-long project. I’ll find out once my boxed sets arrive.

I received an email from Amazon on Tuesday, September 8, 2009, that my Beatles mono and stereo boxed sets have been shipped! When I pre-ordered them several weeks ago, I chose Amazon’s free (slow) shipping in order to save a little money. Yes, I was extremely excited to hear what the remastered songs sound like, but I’ve waited this long and figured a few extra days wouldn’t hurt.

I scrolled down to read the rest of the email and couldn’t believe my eyes. Evidently, in all of my excitement, I must’ve accidentally clicked my family’s address instead of my own because it turns out my boxed sets are being mailed to their address, 725 miles away from mine. I told my mom and asked her to please mail the package to me as soon as she receives it.

So, I was hoping to start posting my impressions of the remastered CDs next week, but now it’ll probably be another week after that until I’m even able to listen to them. D’oh!

I’m going to try to be patient during these next couple of weeks. I promise, as soon as I get my hands on the sets, I’ll post detailed comparisons between the 1987 and 2009 CDs, as well as mono vs. stereo. Expect full write-ups, with audio clips and waveform images.

- – -

UPDATE September 14, 2009: I just posted my Abbey Road 1987 vs. 2009 remastered review: Beatles Review – Abbey Road Remastered CD. I hope you find it useful!

In April, I wrote a blog entry titled The Beatles Mono vs. Stereo (Remastered CDs Coming Sept. 2009). In it, I discussed the upcoming Beatles remastered CD boxed sets and my preference for the stereo versions of their albums. I also created and posted several mono vs. stereo audio clips, so you could hear the difference.

That post has been very popular, so as a follow-up – and as a reminder that the new sets are less than seven weeks away – I’ve created more mono/stereo comparison clips and posted them below. After putting these samples together, I still believe that the stereo mixes are superior to the mono mixes. Listen for yourself and let me know which mixes you prefer (listen to these clips in headphones for a more dramatic effect):

“I Call Your Name” 1964, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (i-call-your-nam-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
58 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“If I Fell” 1964, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (if-i-fell-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

- – -

“I’m Looking Through You” 1965, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (im-looking-thro-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

- – -

“I’m Happy Just to Dance with You” 1964, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (im-so-happy-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
58 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“In My Life” 1965, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (in-my-life-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
58 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“I Should Have Known Better” 1964, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (i-should-have-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
57 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Long Tall Sally” 1964, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (long-tall-sally-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

- – -

“No Reply” 1964, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (no-reply-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
56 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)” 1965, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (norwegian-wood-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
58 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Please Please Me” 1963, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (please-please-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
58 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Rock and Roll Music” 1964, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (rock-and-roll-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
53 second MP3 file – 2.1 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Run for Your Life” 1965, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (run-for-your-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
58 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Think for Yourself” 1965, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (think-for-yours-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
56 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Twist and Shout” 1963, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (twist-and-shout-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
37 second MP3 file – 1.4 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

If you’re planning on buying only one of the boxed sets and aren’t sure which one, I hope my audio clips in this post and my previous one help you decide. Keep in mind, these clips aren’t comparing the remastered versions of the songs that are coming out in September. I obviously don’t have access to those yet (I wish I did!), but I assume their sound quality will be even better. For now though, at least you can hear the difference between the mono and stereo mixes.

While I’m on the subject of the remasters, I pre-ordered both boxed sets on Amazon about a week ago. They set me back $448. Ouch! At least if the price goes down between now and September 9, I’ll pay the lower price, though I doubt that’ll happen.

For the price I’m paying, I really hope the sets are worth it in terms of mastering quality. The first thing I’ll do when I receive them is rip a few of the songs to my computer and analyze the waveforms. If there are any signs of the loundess war (brickwall limiting, hard-clipping, or severe dynamic range compression), I’m returning them. I’ll post my impressions and waveform analyses as soon as the CDs arrive in September.

In the meantime, which boxed set are you going to buy, mono, stereo, or both?

I’m a huge fan of The Beatles. I grew up listening to my parents’ old Beatles records, 45s, 8-tracks, and cassette tapes. They even bought me some of my own as I got a little older. Then, in 1987, they started upgrading to CD and by the late 1980s, we had almost every Beatles album in digital form. At that point, our records sat in crates untouched. We still used our tapes in the car, but at home, we enjoyed our crystal clear Beatles CDs.

All of the Beatles music my parents and I owned was in stereo. My parents owned a good stereo sound system, so why would they have bought the mono versions of Beatles albums? I didn’t even know Beatles albums were released in mono until my parents started buying the CDs. I remember being disappointed that the first four Beatles albums on CD were in mono. Why would Apple do that? As scratched and abused as our old records were, the stereo separation on those early recordings sounded great. I loved being able to “feel” the studio space in my headphones. Plus, I appreciated the fact that I could isolate the vocals and study the harmonies or isolate the instruments and focus on Paul’s bass lines, Ringo’s drumming, etc. Overall, the stereo versions sounded clearer, cleaner, and more powerful to me. Here’s an example:

“Anna (Go to Him)” 1963, short mono/stereo comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (anna-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
24 second MP3 file – 0.9 MB (right-click to save)

In 2003, my old coworker Chris got me interested in the mono versions of later Beatles albums (Revolver, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, etc.), mainly so I could hear the recording and mixing variations that exist between the two versions. It may seem like a strange process today, but in the 1960s, EMI’s engineers mixed each Beatles album in mono first, then went back to the multitrack recordings, set up their effects processors all over again, and created the stereo edits and mixes from scratch – sometimes days later. That’s why the mono and stereo versions of later Beatles albums feature so many differences.

It would’ve been easier and faster to mix each album in stereo first and then simply create a mono reduction from the stereo mixes, but that’s not how it was done 45 years ago when mono was the dominant format.

Because the Beatles were present when the mono mixes were created – but supposedly not for the stereo mixes – some fans believe the mono mixes are automatically superior. According to Chris Carter, host of the weekly radio show Breakfast with the Beatles on KLOS-FM and Sirius/XM, “The mono mixes of those LPs is the way the Beatles themselves intended you to hear those albums. The stereo mixes were usually done as an afterthought by second engineers without any Beatles present.”

I strongly disagree. Just because John, Paul, George, and Ringo supposedly weren’t present for the stereo mixes, that doesn’t mean EMI’s engineers created them as an afterthought. In fact, the stereo mixes often featured improved editing and more refined special effects than the mono mixes. Here’s an example:

editing between “Good Morning Good Morning” and “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)” 1967, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (sgt-pepper-repr-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

I enjoy being able to hear each instrument and vocal crisply and clearly in the stereo mixes, but some people are disoriented by the severe stereo separation/hard panning in many of the songs and prefer what they consider to be the less-jarring mono versions. No problem. It’s really a matter of personal preference, but to say the stereo albums were afterthoughts is silly.

During the last several years, the later mono albums have grown on me and I’m now at the point where I don’t consider them to be inferior, just…different. I listen to the mono version of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band one day and the stereo version the next. If I had to choose one set of Beatles albums to keep though, I’d still go for the stereo versions. The mono versions are interesting and new to my ears, but they always sound a bit muffled and cluttered by comparison, especially in the busier, more ambitious recordings. A relatively sparse song like “A Day in the Life” sounds fine in mono, but a song like “Good Morning Good Morning” sounds like a jumbled mess. There’s just too much going on.

That said, the entire Beatles catalog is being remastered for the first time since 1987. The new CDs are scheduled for release on September 9, 2009, and will include the mono and stereo versions of each album, except Abbey Road and Let It Be, which were only released in stereo. That means several Beatles albums will be officially available on CD in mono or stereo for the first time ever.

Part of me is skeptical because of today’s improper mastering techniques, known as the loudness war…but part of me is optimistic after reading this Guardian.co.uk article, which states, “engineers at EMI’s Abbey Road studios spent four years on the remasters, ‘utilising state-of-the-art recording technology alongside vintage studio equipment, carefully maintaining the authenticity and integrity of the original analogue recordings.’”

That’s a good sign, but just in case, I’m begging the mastering engineer: please don’t resort to brickwall limiting or hard clipping. Give me a chance to turn the volume up on my home sound system for a change.

I know this collection of CDs isn’t going to be cheap, so I’ve already begun setting aside money. I should have enough in my Beatles fund by September. In the meantime, listen to some more of my stereo/mono comparison samples and let me know which segments you think sound better, the mono or the stereo (listen to these clips in headphones for a more dramatic effect):

“Good Morning Good Morning” 1967, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (good-morning-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

- – -

“I’m Only Sleeping” 1966, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (im-only-sleep-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
57 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Lovely Rita” 1967, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (lovely-rita-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
56 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” 1967, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (lucy-in-the-sky-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

- – -

“Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!” 1967, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (mr-kite-mono-stereo.mp3)

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

- – -

“Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” 1967, short stereo/mono comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (sgt-pepper-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
56 second MP3 file – 2.2 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

“Yellow Submarine” 1966, short mono/stereo comparison clip:

Listen:
Download audio file (yellow-sub-mono-stereo.mp3)

Download:
54 second MP3 file – 2.1 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

UPDATE July 26, 2009: I just posted more Beatles mono/stereo comparison clips: The Beatles Mono vs. Stereo, Part 2. I hope you find them useful!

I grew up listening to vinyl records and cassette tapes. My parents had a large library of albums and I eventually had a pretty good collection, too. Many of our records and tapes were old and in poor condition from being played and handled so much, but we still enjoyed listening to them. Rumble, crackle, skips, hiss, and tapes getting eaten were just a normal part of the music listening experience.

Or so I thought.

Compact Disc players were released in the U.S. in early 1983. My family bought a CD player four years later in 1987. I remember some of the first CDs we owned were Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road by The Beatles, Endless Summer by The Beach Boys, Private Dancer by Tina Turner, White Christmas by Bing Crosby, and a Harry Nilsson greatest hits album.

My parents owned a nice stereo system and we were impressed with how good our CDs sounded. We were able to hear every instrument more clearly than ever before. The drums were more powerful, the bass was deeper, the vocals were richer, the guitars were crisper, and the stereo separation was more distinct. The crackle, pops, and hiss that had previously masked the music were gone. Finally, the perfect audio format! How was this possible?

I began buying my own CDs as a teenager in 1992. I started off with a few “Weird Al” Yankovic albums, followed by Nirvana, The Beatles, Belly, and The Cranberries. By now, I was used to the clean, powerful sound of CDs and hated dealing with cassette tapes. A few years later, my CD collection had grown to include albums by Matthew Sweet, the Meat Puppets, Primus, Samantha Fox, and The Breeders. I bought dozens of CDs in 1993 and 1994 and they all sounded great.

In 1995, I started to notice that the new CDs I was buying didn’t sound quite as clear as my older ones. I figured it was a new trend in music production. Maybe the Phil Spector “wall of sound” was making a comeback. I didn’t like it, but it wasn’t enough to bother me.

In early 1998, I bought Tanya Donelly’s solo album Lovesongs for Underdogs after finding out about it on the internet. I listened to it a few times in my headphones and I liked the songs, but again, I noticed the sound quality wasn’t as clear as my older CDs. The bass and guitars often lacked definition. The drums had too much reverb. Why were the engineers behind the mixing desk doing this? I thought they used professional, high quality monitors. Couldn’t they hear the mush they were creating? Why was this production trend continuing and why was nobody else noticing? Was it just me?

As alternative rock music died out in the late 1990s and rap and hip hop became mainstream, I bought fewer new CDs. The only artists I continued to support were “Weird Al” Yankovic, Juliana Hatfield, Tanya Donelly, Paul McCartney, and The Cranberries, but I was more and more disappointed with the sound quality of each new release. Weird Al’s albums prior to 1999 sound fantastic on CD, especially the ones from the 1980s, but all of his albums since 1999 sound bad. Why?

I remember buying Running with Scissors when it was released in 1999. As I listened to “The Saga Begins” for the first time, I was surprised to hear that Al’s vocal was constantly distorting. It definitely wasn’t supposed to. I ejected the CD and checked the bottom for dust and scratches, but there were none. I played the song again and heard the same distorted, crackly vocal. I couldn’t believe it. Why was this happening and why did Al release the album like that? Didn’t anyone in the recording studio hear the distortion?

I ejected the CD again and played an older one, just to see if my stereo system was malfunctioning. It wasn’t. The older CD sounded fine.

I noticed the same thing with the other new CDs I bought, too. It didn’t make sense.

Eventually, I figured out that for some reason, the music on new CDs was being heavily compressed…so much that it was destroying the sound quality. This wasn’t just being done to rock CDs, but to pop and jazz CDs, too. CDs used to sound amazing, but now they were sounding almost as bad as my old tapes and records!

In 2006, I searched the internet to see what was going on with all of these new, horrible sounding CDs and found articles about the loudness war. I was right: new music was being over-compressed to make it sound louder. Supposedly, record executives want their label’s CDs to sound louder than everyone else’s. The result is that the executives at every record label are constantly trying to outdo each other’s loudness. It’s an audio arms race and if it continues, all music will sound like distorted, nondescript garbage.

I’ve provided some examples to illustrate how the over-compression and hard limiting present in modern music actually destroys its sound quality:

“Oh, the Guilt” by Nirvana (1993 vs. 2004)

When I listen to “Oh, the Guilt” from the 1993 Nirvana CD single The Jesus Lizard and Nirvana, it sounds perfect. The instruments are powerful and punchy and the tone is balanced. When I listen to the remastered version of “Oh, the Guilt” from the 2004 Nirvana boxed set With the Lights Out, it sounds mushy. The guitars aren’t as clear, the drums aren’t as strong, and the song isn’t as dynamic. What was supposed to be a superior digital remaster in 2004 ended up sounding worse than the old version from 1993. Look at the waveforms:

Nirvana “Oh, the Guilt” waveforms – click to enlarge

The black waveform is the remastered version from With the Lights Out (2004). The green and red waveform is the original version from Nirvana’s CD single (1993). As you can see, the version from With the Lights Out is missing 5.5 dB of dynamic range present in the original. All of the peaks have been flattened and the song has been ruined, just for the sake of making it seem louder.

“Curmudgeon” by Nirvana (1992 vs. 2004)

Another example is Nirvana’s song “Curmudgeon.” The original version from the “Lithium” CD single (1992) sounds superior to the remastered version from With the Lights Out (2004). Look at the waveforms:

Nirvana “Curmudgeon” waveforms – click to enlarge

The black waveform is the remastered version from With the Lights Out (2004). The green and red waveform is the original version from the “Lithium” single (1992). Again, the remastered version has been heavily compressed and is missing 7.8 dB of dynamic range compared to the original.

I’ve created a high-quality MP3 file comparing the two versions, so you can hear the difference for yourself:

Listen:
Download audio file (curmudgeon-comparison.mp3)

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

In the 1992 version, the guitars, snare drum, bass drum, and cymbals sound crisp, clear, and powerful, as they should. In the 2004 remastered version, the guitars and cymbals have become a wash of background noise and the snare drum is barely audible. Listen to my comparison MP3 file a few times and you’ll hear what I mean. Pay attention to the snare drum, in particular. Where does it go?

I’ve also created a video comparing the two waveforms and VU meter readings:

YouTube – Curmudgeon by Nirvana (1992 vs. 2004)

By watching the VU meter in the bottom right corner, you can actually see that the original version (1992) has more energy and dynamics than the remastered version (2004), which is flat and lifeless.

What was once a powerful hard rock song is now a mushy, nondescript mess.

“Reward” by The Meat Puppets (1987 vs. 1999)

My last example is “Reward” by The Meat Puppets. It’s the first song on their first album, Meat Puppets. Look at the waveforms:

Meat Puppets “Reward” waveforms – click to enlarge

The black waveform is from the remastered Meat Puppets CD released in 1999. The green and red waveform is from the original Meat Puppets CD released in 1987. The songs on this album weren’t as heavily compressed as the Nirvana songs on With the Lights Out, but there is still a 4.3 dB reduction in dynamic range, which is noticeable. Again, the re-released CD was supposed to be a superior digital remaster. What happened?

The whole reason record executives want their label’s music to be compressed is to make it sound louder and more powerful, but compressing the music to this extent actually has the opposite effect! It makes the music sound less powerful because the attacks of the instruments and vocals have been severely limited and, in many cases, clipped and distorted.

From what I understand, vinyl records and cassette tapes can realistically handle up to around 60 dB of dynamic range. When mastered properly, they sound good. By comparison, audio CDs can realistically handle up to around 90 dB of dynamic range. That’s a 50 percent improvement and when mastered properly, they sound amazing. Yet, record executives continue to release improperly mastered CDs with less dynamic range than old records and tapes. What good is releasing the world’s loudest pop or rock CD if it sounds like distorted garbage?

Fortunately in 2007, engineer/producer Charles Dye, musician John Ralston, and recording studio owner Allen Wagner have created www.turnmeup.org, a non-profit music industry organization working to give artists the choice to release more dynamic recordings.

Albums that meet Turn Me Up!’s dynamic range standards bear a label that states:

“To preserve the excitement, emotion, and dynamics of the original performances, this record is intentionally quieter than some. For full enjoyment, simply Turn Me Up!”

As a musician, music lover, and audio enthusiast, I fully support this movement and really hope it catches on soon. I might be more inclined to buy new CDs if the music on them actually sounded musical. If it means having to raise the volume on my stereo, then so be it. Since when was that ever a problem anyway?

For more examples of the loudness war, watch these excellent videos:

YouTube – The Loudness War

YouTube – Massive Attack waveform comparison

YouTube – Death Magnetic by Metallica, compressed CD vs. uncompressed Guitar Hero III waveform comparison

YouTube – Iron Maiden 1980-2006 waveform comparison