goodrob13.com – Rob's video guitar lessons and music blog » Beatles Review

Beatles Review – Abbey Road Remastered CD

posted by Rob on September 14, 2009 at 1:38 am | Comments (46)

Abbey Road by The Beatles (2009 remastered CD)

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

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:

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:
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:

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:
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:

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:
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:

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:
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:

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:
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:

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:
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.

Share this post:

Rate this post:

(10 votes, average: 4.60 out of 5)

Loading ...

Reward this post with a little donation:

Categories: Blog, Reviews | Comments (46)

Tags: Abbey Road, Beatles, CD, compact disc, comparison, mastering, music, remaster, remastered, review, samples, sound quality, stereo

46 Comments

By Jayson, September 14, 2009 @ 8:59 am

Thanks for the review. This is exactly the sort of thing I have been waiting for before going out and buying the boxset. I hope you’re right and the earlier albums are better, otherwise I might just save my money!
By Alex, September 14, 2009 @ 11:26 am

Great review. Very informative and great attention to detail.We need more people like u on the web.
By AS, September 14, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

Hello Rob,
Thanks for the great review. You definitely provided exactly the information I was looking for and your insight into this whole process is truly awesome.

I am not sure if you have done this for Led Zeppelin remasters too. I am interested in finding out if the new Led Zeppelin Box set Definitive Collection Mini LP Replica (2008) is also a victim of the loudness wars as compared to the Complete Studio Recordings (1994) remasters.

I would appreciate the information. Sorry about posting this on your Beatles remasters analysis as my question may not be really related to your post.

Thank you,
Aditya
By Cimrya Deal, September 14, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

Thanks for the review, it confirmed what I already thought, the Abbey Road’s remaster was not a huge improvement. BUT I have to be honest, I own the boxset, and the other albums (well, from Revolver to the White Album as I concentrated myself on these) all sound A LOT better than their 1987 counterpart. And this very fact also confirmed another opinion I had: the 1987 Abbey Road was the best of the lot and sounded very good indeed compared to 1987 Sgt Pepper for instance. And I might have a theory about this: Abbey Road was designed from inception as a stereo album and is the only one. Maybe using genuinely thought-as-stereo mixes were easier to master in ’87 that half-assed jobs such as previous stereo mixes done without the Beatles’ or sometimes George Martin’s opinions.
By chuck, September 14, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

Wait until you get A Hard Days Night and Help as well as the Past masters-I think you will be blown away by the improvement. Yes they are all subtle improvements, but that has been the case with many remasters-Rolling Stomes, Dylan, etc.
By Wayne, September 15, 2009 @ 8:48 am

Dear Goodrob,

Although not as extensive as yours, my thoughts of the new ‘Abbey Road’ mirror yours. I have heard thus far, ‘Abbey Road’, ‘White Album’, and ‘Sgt. Pepper’. Abbey Road shows the least amount of change of the three in my opinion.
Thank you very much for your technical findings, as well as your own impressions on the re-masters. I look forward to reading more from you.

Wayne
By Wayne, September 15, 2009 @ 8:50 am

Oh, did you notice the hum drop away at 00:13 on ‘I Want You’ on the re-master?
By Vincent Truman, September 15, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

Very skeptically, I purchased the remastered ‘Pepper’ and was nearly 100% bowled over with the sound. Occasionally, it seems the remaster folks smooth things about a bit too much, as they definitely do on ‘Within You Without You’, but that’s a minor criticism over what I consider to be a stellar job. I can see ‘Abbey’ being the less transformed, as it was pretty good to start with!
By Wayne, September 15, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

Dear Vincent Truman,

I agree with you about ‘Pepper’. What struck me about the re-master, is it’s warmth and natural sound. Goodrob will give us a technical analysis, I’m sure! But, from this point onward, I’ll reach for the re-mastered ‘Pepper’. Regarding ‘Abbbey Road’, I like that the sound engineers tone down the upper register of ‘Maxwell’s Silver Hammer’ and ‘Polytheme Pam’. These tunes used to heart my ears. They were too ear-piercing. The re-masters solved that. No doubt it though, the re-mastered ‘Abbey Road’ was a subtle improvement.

I will be very interested in hearing what Goodrob has to say about the ‘White Album’, particulary ‘I will’, which to my ears seems quite loud.

God Bless
By Rob, September 15, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

Thanks everyone for the great feedback! My mom called me this morning to let me know my boxed sets arrived yesterday and that she mailed them next day air today. I was expecting to receive them next week, but now it looks like I’ll have my hands on them tomorrow!

So, expect my next remastered CD review tomorrow night.

Aditya, I don’t own any Led Zeppelin music on CD. However, once I’m finished reviewing the remastered Beatles albums, I’ll see if I can find some used Zeppelin CDs and compare them.

Cimrya and Chuck, thanks for confirming what I thought: the earlier Beatles albums benefited more from the remastering than Abbey Road did. Again, I’ll have my boxed sets tomorrow and will post my next review then.

Wayne, thanks for pointing out that bit of hum reduction in the remastered version of “I Want You (She’s So Heavy).” I hadn’t noticed that until now. It’s extremely subtle, but it’s still worth pointing out. I’m updating my review to reflect that.

Also, you and Vincent have gotten me excited to listen to Sgt. Pepper’s now. Only one more day to go!
By Wayne, September 16, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

OMG!!! Rob, I hadn’t even noticed that Ringo’s taps were obliterated with the removal of the hum! I am flabbergasted! EMI/APPLE engineers told us that no Beatle sounds would be sacrificed during the re-master process. I now wish they had left that hum alone. Boys and girls, hold on to your original CDs! Rob, I applaud your attention to detail. You sir are a true audiophile!
By Rob, September 16, 2009 @ 3:00 pm

Wayne, thanks! Technically, the taps *are* still there though. It’s weird…when I isolate the left channel in my audio editing software, I hear them faintly. However, for some reason, I can’t hear them at all in the normal stereo mix.

So, the taps are still there, but under normal listening conditions, they’re inaudible. :)
By chuck, September 16, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

Rob,
Today I bought Please Please Me, With the Beatles and Beatles for Sale. First the good news-Beatles for Sale sounds great in the stereo I think-a lot more breadth and depth. Now the bad news-PPM and With. I’ll be keeping my old 1987 mono CD’s of these two. The “stereo” seperation, instruments on the left and vocals on the right drives me crazy-and I am old enough to remember the original stereo LP’s. I wonder how long before someone who bought the Mono Box will be selling theirs on e-bay?
By bushwick is beautiful, September 16, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

Not only is your review interesting, but it’s honest and helpful.

The albums need to be remixed to hear something truly new and exciting. That will come eventually, 10, maybe 20 years down the line.

My opinion is that the Love CD, sounded really good. Not only was the quality good to my ears, but the creativity factor added some excitement to the catalog. The have only scratched the surface with the mash ups.

I know some people don’t like this sort of thing.

One final note, we are all Beatles fans.
Some of us nuts like myself, and this blog writer ;-). We all enjoy different things about the music. I respect that we all don’t share the same opinion, and also respect the fact that we all share a love of the most interesting band ever.

Keep the reviews coming.
By spinetingler, September 16, 2009 @ 8:21 pm

>I bet I could listen to every Beatles tape in EMI’s vault from beginning to end, take after take, and not get bored.

You and me both, brother!
By Gordon, September 17, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

Good review, altough i cannot really agree, to my ears the remastered Abbey Road is a big improvement over the 87 version. I was never able to hear more than “Shoo” in Come Together for example, on the remasters “Shoot me” is (if not clearly at least not completely un)audible. Have to agree on the guitars in “The End”, they sound a little buried in the mix…
By kev, September 19, 2009 @ 2:33 am

Outstanding work, Rob. Still on the fence about the stereo box set, Abbey Road is the only stereo remastered I have so far. The folks who posted on Amazon seem to be saying this is the one to have in stereo, so i bought it. I was blown away, feeling like they had done a tremendously improved job. But now that you mention it, I haven’t heard the ’87 one in years. So…
Looking forward to all your reviews. I am having a blast with the mono box set. I’d grown up hearing Ringo’s “blisters” at the end of Helter Skelter, and when it didn’t happen it became one of those “what the hell” moments that turned into laughter. Good times.
By Wayne, September 19, 2009 @ 11:35 am

HI Kev,

Sure enough, the mono box holds lots of little surprises. Of course, the White Album was only officially released in mono in Great Britain. This marks the first official release of the White Album in the USA. Personally, I think the mono box is the absolute true star of this round of releases.
By chris s, September 20, 2009 @ 4:12 am

great work
ive played these side by side really looking for a difference and like you the think the difference apart from volume is very very minimal. waht about the come togther version on love its very simular instrument mix level wise but much less hiss at high volume, then again its remixed as well and not just remastered.
my mono set has not arrived yet but im hoping for more of that hearing is believing quote than on this one
By Alex Bunardzic, September 23, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

I read your review in utter disbelief. It is rather obvious that you’re a person who is seriously passionate about the subjects you tackle, and yet what I couldn’t understand is how did you manage to miss those marvelous gems that I found so easily on the remastered “Abbey Road”?

It may be due to the nature/quality of the equipment you and I have used to evaluate the remastered disc. I am an old school audiophile who is firmly entrenched in the two channel stereo, meaning I never use headphones for my listening pleasure. Perhaps therein lies the difference between our assessments?

Here is my situation (for your perusal and comparison): I am using a very high-end audio system that I’ve assembled over the years of relentless auditioning and component swapping. In addition, I’ve also optimized the speaker placement in my listening room to avoid any standing waves and other unwanted sound artifacts.

I have always felt that the 1987 “Abbey Road” on CD was one of the best sounding CDs in my library, and certainly the best sounding CD in the Beatles digitized catalog.

HOWEVER, I wasn’t nearly prepared for the absolutely religious awakening that the new “Abbey Road” remaster brought upon me. Simply, put, I was utterly destroyed when I sat down and listened to it.

It is now, by far, the best sounding CD in my collection (and believe me, I have amassed hundreds, if not thousands of hand picked audiophile grade CDs).

This is the CD to actually end, once and for all, the fundamentalist war between the proponents of analog source vs. the proponent of digital source. All the arguments coming from the analog faction (i.e. warmth, soft-knee distortion, space between the instruments, etc.) got obliterated by this CD. Simply put, this CD carries inside its digitized bits more warmth than most of the vinyl pressing of the Beatles LPs that I have in my collection. The soundstage and the breathing space in-between the instruments is now huge, way way better defined and sharper than ever before. This CD beats, hands-down, even the most carefully crafted analog pressings of “Abbey Road”.

I kid you not, I literally couldn’t believe my ears when I first took this disc for a spin. I’ve purposefully left this CD to be listened to at the end, as I was going through the box set in chronological order (save for the “Past Masters”, which I’ve listened to early on). I knew I was saving the best for last, and the disc didn’t betray me.

I could write tomes of gushing prose describing all the fantastic details and nuances I am now able to hear for the first time, after 40 years of incessant listening to this album. But even more importantly than the hidden gems and the uncovered details, it is now the Holly Grail of how should music sound coming out of the speakers. It is fully alive, present, razor sharp, it pulsates, breathes, rocks, disturbs!

So back to how is it possible that you haven’t heard any of that? I’m lost, I’m scratching my head. I can understand that there could be a generation weaned on the tinny, brittle, non-soft knee distortion that the legacy CDs introduced back in the ’80s. So that when presented with the full-blooded sound, such as it is on this remaster, they recoil, and feel as if the ‘crispness’ (the word I believe you’ve used to explain how is the ’87 version better than the remaster) is missing.

But it is precisely that ‘crispness’ that is the hallmark and the downfall of the poorly converted analog material to digital. And now finally, we’ve managed to get rid of that pesky ‘crispness’ that is so grating on ears!

Now, if you’re gonna lament that, then I think the only thing left for you is to disregard the warm remasters and stick to the tinny ’87 catalog. But I personally find it almost impossible to believe that anyone would prefer the brittle, tinny, harsh sounding pale replica of the analog tape to this full bodies beauty that this new batch of Beatles remasters is.

Your review is also a good illustration of how things might get missed when listened to with one’s eyes, instead of one’s ears. Those waveforms plotted above don’t mean a thing. The only thing that matters is hearing. And hearing is believe in this case!

Please stop listening to music with your eyes and with your intellect, and try listening to it with your ears and your with heart.

Then again, maybe I’ve totally misunderstood your review, in which case, please accept my apologies:)
By Rob, September 23, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

Alex, thanks for the great comment! I’m definitely open to other people’s opinions and input, so I appreciate reading your thoughts.

Believe me, I wanted so badly for the remastered Abbey Road CD to sound amazing. I could’ve bought into all the hype and gushed about how incredible this new CD sounds, but after driving myself nearly crazy comparing the new CD to the 1987 one, I decided to be honest and accept what I heard: the old CD sounds great and this new CD doesn’t sound much different overall.

When I wrote that I prefer the crispness in the old CD, I wasn’t talking about distortion. You know how some people prefer loud, over-emphasized bass? Well, maybe I’m the same way with treble. I like it when cymbals and hi-hats sound bright and sparkly…not too bright, of course, but I definitely enjoy hearing crisp high frequencies, as long as they are in balance with the rest of the song.

Maybe you prefer the slightly rolled-off high frequencies in most of the remastered version. However, I prefer the electric guitars and drums coming out of my speakers and biting me in “The End,” which doesn’t happen in the softened, dulled down remastered version.

Either way, I don’t hear the amazing improvement you wrote about. If the improvement is as huge as you claim, shouldn’t I be able to notice it right away?

And there are definitely people who still prefer certain vinyl pressings of Abbey Road to all of the CD releases, but I don’t have the free time to get involved in that hobby and hear for myself.
By Alex Bunardzic, September 23, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your quick and thoughtful reply:)

You wrote: “Either way, I don’t hear the amazing improvement you wrote about. If the improvement is as huge as you claim, shouldn’t I be able to notice it right away?”

Absolutely. I firmly believe so. That’s why I’m totally confused now. Is it me? Am I being delusional to the point of psyching myself into hearing what’s not really there?

In other words, have I fallen the victim of the “emperor’s new clothes”? Have I bought into the hype, and am now drinking Apple’s cool aid?

Too bad we don’t know each other personally, so that we could sit together in the same room and go over the A/B listening test (comparing the ’87 CD with the new one).

Here are some of the things that don’t compute (at least not for me):

1. Your claim that you prefer electric guitars jumping out of the speakers and biting you. That’s exactly my point! On the ’87 CD, the guitars are there, but not nearly in the full bodied three dimensional presence as on the remaster. For example, the soaring electric guitar on “Come Together” on the remastered disc literally jumps out of the speakers and reaches out to me and grabs me by the collar. It is really three dimensional now. Same goes for all the other electric guitar tracks on this remaster. They all now come with tons of more muscle.

Like, the electric guitar during the “But oh that magic feeling” part – it now TRULY sounds like a giant church bell! I don’t know how did they get that tone (I’m a guitar player with over 30 years under my belt, and I’ve never heard a guitar/amp combo that can sound like a church bell). The same guitar part on the ’87 CD sounds OK, but not anywhere near close to this muscular, three dimensional church bell sound we can now hear on the remaster.

The guitar on “Oh Darling!” — my god, it is so visceral now, it rocks my entire house! Going back to listen to the same track on the ’87 CD, that same guitar is incredibly wimpy sounding.

2. Your point about cymbals — I’m in the same boat. I like open, airy, transparent sound, with lots of crisp highs. And that’s precisely where this remaster shines! There isn’t even a trace of “rolled-off high frequencies”, at least not when played on my audio system. The cymbals are now much more in-your-face than on the ’87 CD. Same goes for various percussion, such as tambourine, maracas, etc. Crystal clear, firmly carved in the space defined by the sound stage. You feel you can almost reach out and grab those instruments, they are so forcefully defined in a three dimensional space in front of you.

All that is barely present on the ’87 CD.

And, oh yeah, I’m in a full agreement with you that I strongly dislike boomy, muddy bass. For example, the deep resonating bass note that keeps ringing on “Come Together” during the “hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease” — it is now much airier, much more well rounded than on the ’87 CD. On the old CD that same bass sounds much boomier, muddier, undefined — almost like a deep bass note with an identity crisis. It keeps kind of wobbling as it hovers in the air in front of the left speaker.

Any traces of that identity crisis are now gone with a much firmer, more assertive sound on the remaster. However, that deep, warm, assertive sound on the remaster does not mask nor interfere with any other instruments or vocals on the track. They all happily coexist on the track, sharing the sound stage, and are crystal clear presented to the listener. Magic!

It has always been a well established fact that high quality vinyl pressings of “Abbey Road” sound absolutely superior in any respect to the ’87 CD. There is a unanimous consensus on that. Well, guess what — the remastered CD now totally creams any vinyl pressing, proving that finally we can have the best of both worlds: the warmth and three dimensionally carved sound that used to be the domain of pure analog, coupled with the incredibly quiet and distortion-free signal, that is the domain of digital.

My advice to you would be to make an effort and check out how the high quality vinyl “Abbey Road” sounds on a good system, and compare that experience with the way the ’87 CD sounds. If you can’t hear any differences between the vinyl and the old CD, I rest my case. If, on the other hand, you are able to detect the differences, you’ll be amazed at how better the remaster sounds compared to both the vinyl and to the old school CD.
By Wayne, September 25, 2009 @ 9:41 am

Dear Alex Bunardzic,

You commented to Rob, “Your review is also a good illustration of how things might get missed when listened to with one’s eyes, instead of one’s ears. Those waveforms plotted above don’t mean a thing. The only thing that matters is hearing. And hearing is believe in this case!”

Rob is carefully balancing his personal observations of audio quality with waveform analysis. No offense here, but to suggest that waveforms don’t mean a thing is ridiculous!

I am happy you find the ‘Abbey Road’ re-master so pleasing. As for myself, I find it marginally better. There were a few tracks that were toned down in the mid and upper ranges and a few that were slightly boosted in the lower range. I suspect that most of the improvements and warmth you are hearing are a result of careful re-equalizing.

My observations, for the most part, echo Rob’s findings. I enjoy his waveform analysis; and yes, waveform analysis is not the end-all in determining quality of audio. It can, however, show evidence of peak limiting common to so many music releases today.

I want to congratulate you on your attention to detail and your high-end audio system. It is true that faithful audio reproduction equipment can reveal much.
By Alex Bunardzic, September 25, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

Hi Wayne,

You bring up a good point:

“Rob is carefully balancing his personal observations of audio quality with waveform analysis. No offense here, but to suggest that waveforms don’t mean a thing is ridiculous!”

It is, indeed, ridiculous to claim that analysis don’t mean a thing. With that I agree. However, not all analyses are created equal, and what I was doing in my comment above is questioning the validity of performing visual analysis on a non-visual medium.

Would it help if I clarified this statement by saying that you cannot evaluate a meal you’re about to consume in a restaurant by reading the ingredients on the menu? You need to taste the meal, consume it, before you can feel entitled to make a judgement call about it.

It is true that many of us have extremely low opinion (bordering on a low self-esteem) when it comes to relying on one’s subjective experience. To mitigate that, some of us are reaching out for a more ‘objective’ way for measuring quality/crappiness of the product we’re evaluating.

However, sometimes this quest for objectivity tends to go overboard and to lose all touch with reality and with common sense. To look into the waveform plotted on the computer screen, and to make a judgement call based on that visual experience, is bordering on recklessness.

Here is where the issue becomes contentious: in the original article, the author made bold claims that, according to his findings, the old ’87 “Abbey Road” CD and the newly remastered 2009 CD sound, for all intents and purposes, identical. However, later on, in replying to my comment, the author expounds how the remaster sounds noticeably less crisp, even muffled, when compared to the old ’87 CD.

Not being able to maintain even a minimum consistency in one’s analysis and in one’s conclusions is a sure fire way to lose credibility. The author needs to make up his mind at this point: are the CDs almost identical in the way they sound (which was his original claim), or are they noticeably different in terms of the way they sound (which is the claim he subsequently made when replying to my comment)?
By lotones, September 25, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

First, thanks you Rob for doing the “leg work” in you original analysis. I read it last night and started to reply but decided against it. But I’ve thought all day about replying so I might as well get on with it… lol… :-) sorry if this has already been pointed out…

I found your analysis well thought out, I don’t completely agree with it. While dynamic range is important, it’s not the only measure of fidelity (much like the contrast ratio of an HDTV). Imho, in none of the audio examples you provided did the ’87 sound better than the ’09 remasters. “Different”, yes, I’ll admit, but that difference is exactly why I traded most of my original ’87 cds in 10 years ago: the overwhelming midrange of the ’87′s.

It’s not natural, and it definitely isn’t “supposed to be there” (ala the ridiculous amount of echo on the Capitol boxes). But that overwhelming (again, my opinion…) midrange is what makes the drums, percussion, and vocals, “crisper and punchier”, as you put it, and even inadvertently bring out details otherwise hidden in properly presented Beatlemusic. And that may be something you prefer. But to me everything else about the ’87′s sound like, well… not as realistic as the ’09 remasters. With the midrange in it’s proper sonic perspective the soundstage is more realistic – each instrument and voice sound more realistic in relation to the other. The keyboards, acoustic instruments, and harmony vocals have SPACE around them and are more defined. And the extra little (gratefully judicious) bump in the low frequencies makes the whole performance more cohesive. In comparison, the ’87′s sound like they’re coming out of a boom box.

The ’09′s aren’t perfect. I’m very bummed about apparent loss of some low level detail (Ringo’s taps). And to be realistic the ’87′s weren’t completely horrible (the best 1987 had to offer). But overall I’m very impressed with the sound of the remasters. Especially after A/B-ing “Got To Get You Into My Life”. Now that’s the way horns are supposed to sound!

Thanks again for the time…

ps… I just noticed you’re a guitar player. I’ve known few guitar players who couldn’t hear anything but midrange after standing in front of their amp for years… ;-P (just razzing ya… I’m a bass player…)
By chris s, September 28, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

Alex
im a proffesional sound ,mastering engineer in the UK and the biggest beatles fan i can assure you, i was expecting to hear MORE difference in these re masters yes in certain cases there is a difference but cetainly not on abbey road.
i am playing this through pretty good studio stuff and the differene is minimal , but thats waht mastering is the icing on the cake . the only time mastering makes a big difference is on poorly recorded material and thats hardly the case here. its the Beatles recorded at Abbey Road the best
By chris s, September 28, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

one last thing the biggest difference without a doubt in this entire stereo, mono box set debate and i have them both is pepper in mono, those who have the record will know this already im sure.
like i say best band , best recorings by a mile just enjoy
By Alex Bunardzic, September 28, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

Chris,

This is very intriguing, and thanks for explaining this to me/us. It is quite perplexing to me to learn that there are pros out there who claim that the differences are minimal, even negligible, while I am so blown away by the differences in the sound quality that it’s not even funny.

I’ll take your word for it. At least you’re not claiming that both CDs sound identical, only to later on claim that the ’87 CD sounds much crisper etc.

Let me give you one example here: I’ve listened to “Oh Darling” on the ’87 CD at pretty much full blast, then listened to the same track on the 2009 remaster (after turning the volume down by approx. 25%). While the ’87 CD still sounds absolutely awesome and breathtaking, it definitely gets bested by the remaster, and by a long shot. Number one, the remaster rocks the house (I’m talking about the unison guitar/piano licks during the “when you told me!” segment.) There is just way more presence in how the piano and the guitar sounds are sculpted on the remaster. These instruments now appear three-dimensional. Number two, the overall sound is phenomenally sweet, rounded, even fragrant, so that even when I push the volume pass the bearable loudness, the sweetness remains. On the old ’87 CD, the sound is harsher, much much less sweet, and there is a threshold beyond which the loud sound turns into harsh noise (akin to the noise you’d hear if someone is breaking a truckload of glass bottles or something). This never happens when playing back the LP on a high-end turntable/pickup/pre-phono, nor when playing back the new remaster on a decent CD player.

So, in my opinion, definitely huge improvement. Perhaps delivering this remaster on a higher resolution carrier, such as SACD or Blu Ray, would make it even sweeter, remains to be heard…
By chris s, September 28, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

Alex
yes maybe bluray, have you heard the love album on a high end system in 5.1 now there is quality the remasters dont come close. i dont know waht you are listening on but you are clearly hearing what im not. the higher you turn up an amp the more distortion so the more headroom is needed and the more high end system you need. im listening on B and W monitors with dual Quad 405 amps.
in the end can the normal consumer hear all this NO on an average hifi these remasters sound very simular to the 87 masters no questions. yes they are louder with a bit more punch but as i say how far can you push great recordings
By richard d., October 9, 2009 @ 11:00 am

Just a comment on the Rob/Alex discussion about the new Abbey Road CD. I have to argree with Alex. The quality of sound on the 2009 remaster is far superior to the ’87 CD. That is obvious even on the A/B comparisons Rob sets out for us. I also do not understand how the superior sound is not immediately apparent to anyone. I compared both the disc’s by playing them on my Bose unit, which has excellent sound. It is apparent from this discussion that what one hears is very subjective. I think the differences are stunning; others disagree. Sound is truly in the ears of the beholder.
As a P.S.: The sound quality of the new CD’s, in my view, is pretty close to the Let It Be…Naked/Love quality, but the srereo picture is, of course, different.
By Foxx, October 10, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

Rob,

I have a question about your method. To me, the waveforms of the 1987 and 2009 versions of Come Together have (apart from the level) slight differences in the occurring peaks in the spectrum. Haven’t done any maths, but it seems that 2009 has more of them, or with different ratios between them. This might lead to different results when you adjust the peak level to 0 dB, perhaps the 2009 version is adjusted with a peak not even present in 1987!
In a separate e-mail I wil send some screendumps to illustrate this.

I don’t know which algorithm Goldwave uses to adjust levels to 0 dB, if it does so by only the very loudest point, this doesn’t look an entirely reliable method to me.
By Foxx, October 10, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

I looked somewhat further. First: the method: I extracted the wave forms with EAC, uncompressed wav’s. Then analysis with Goldwave.

I have the following:

1987 (Abbey Road CD): max -3.97 dB at 3:34:14508
1993 (Blue Album CD): max -0.20 dB at 1:51:41088
2000 (“1″ CD): max -0.45 dB (different from you result?) at 3:33:65265
2009 (Abbey Road CD): max -0.37 dB at 3:52:99590

Notice the different positions for the max peaks. This makes that you are adjusting different peaks, which looks the wrong way to me, if you want to make a comparison.
By davidv, October 12, 2009 @ 2:35 am

To my ears, the ’09 Abbey Road sounds superior to the ’87 version. Just listen to Ringo’s drums on The End. Those sound so realistic, full-bodied, 3-D like. Overall, I prefer the new remastered version. To me, the differences were noticeable from the 1st listen.
By Rob, October 12, 2009 @ 10:43 am

Foxx, the remastered version and the original version are going to have different peaks because different EQ, compression, and limiting have been applied to each. Still, by maximizing the loudest peak in each version to 0.0 dB, I’m able to compare the overall dynamic range.

In the case of “Come Together,” I can see that brickwall-limiting hasn’t been applied to the remastered version, which is great. Other than that, I don’t think too much can be drawn from the waveform analysis. It’s just good to get an overall view of the waveform to see whether or not the audio was properly recorded and mastered, from a technical standpoint. It’s a quick visual reference.
By Foxx, October 12, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

Rob,

thanx for your comment. It is fun to play around a little with the waveforms, but (as you also say someplace) listening to the songs is, well, is what they are meant for. Good to ead that your reviews will be posted again, soon.
By richard d., October 16, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

Rob: The only true way to compare the sound of the 87 v. 09 CD’s is to put the in a CD player at the same volume, with no adjustments, and play away. If you adjust levels of things, that is cheating. That is why we are hearing a difference that you are not.
By Christian, November 18, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

Hello I was just wondering, originally in 1987 the CD release of the White Album when each disc were in there own separate jewel case (before the double jewel case version). Has anyone ever seen them in the jewel cases with the black tray as opposed to the white trays?? Thanks!
By Foxx, November 18, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

Here in Holland the White Album CD was originally released in a 2 CD jewel case, not 2 seperate ones. I bought it on the day it came out.
By Wayne, November 19, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

Dear Christian,

I have the original US CD release of the White Album. It originally came in a long-box. Inside the long-box were two standard jewel cases with white CD trays. The CD labels are white with black writing. ‘Apple’ appears nowhere on the original releases. Additionally, the original US CD releases were individually numbered, just like the original LPs.
By gav, June 30, 2010 @ 11:22 am

Strangely enough my experience (dual quad 405/kef 105)is that the biggest difference is apparent when I am not formally listening – and that diff seems significant. Walk around the house and waft in and out of the listening room, catch the sound from the corridor etc and the overall impression is one of considerably more definition. Side by side it is definitely extremely subtle but I guess that is down to trying to use the conscious mind rather than subconscious cues. I am not sure whether some kind of aural exciters have been used to bring a false sense of presence but if not I think it is great job – to have added without apparently re interpreting the mix. I suggest a way of stimulating my what I experience is to physically move around as mentioned above – It seems to tune and stimulate one’s phase sensitivity and that probably probably stumulates further spacial interpretation – - I think