Abbey Road 50th Anniversary Remix Full Review! Part 2

Placement Revisions and Mix

I’m not going to give you a “play by play” of all of the obvious placement mix revisions I noted. You can discover those for yourself (or if you buy the Deluxe CD/Blu-ray set with book, you’ll get an excellent track by track “play by play”). I’ll just note two in particular: it’s nice to have George sing “Here Comes the Sun” “standing” between the speakers rather than being shunted off to the right speaker. It’s equally pleasing to hear the harmonies spread on the stage rather than being locked into the right speaker. That doesn’t make esthetic sense so was obviously originally done due to a “bounce down” that couldn’t be revised until now.

It’s equally great if not even more excellent to get the guitar solos on “The End” spread for the first time across the stereo stage instead of being bunched in the center. On the remix Paul’s guitar is on the left, George’s is on the right and John’s is in the middle.

Like the mix on The Beatles, Martin went for and achieved a more consistent “in the pocket” well-balanced, you might say “technocratic” and orderly mix than was the original, which was a bolder, more “in your face” and inconsistent mix featuring bigger images on a wider, more spacious soundstage that left a lot of space between images and events.

Listening carefully to the original you can hear the placement of ‘satellite submixes’ that were impossible to seamlessly integrate into the whole. The reissue is far more coherent.

There’s much greater bass weight on the reissue but the top end has less (and I think desirable) “crunch”, especially to the snare drums.

I hope Ume doesn’t shut me down for this but here’s Ringo’s solo first from the new remix and then from the original U.K. pressing. Now remember I’ve been playing this record for FIFTY YEARS!!!!!! You will hear that the top end snare is all there! And there’s more of than there is on the reissue. So much for records “wearing out”!

Remix

Originalpress

Also here’s a type of spectral image of the original pressing and then the reissue:

They are very close but you can see the “peaky” nature of the original that gives it the “crunch”. What’s going on there at 30kHz? That’s above my pay grade. I’ll leave that to others. However you can see that “records wear out after a few plays” is just so much B.S.!

The point I want to make with all of this is that the spectral balance of the original pressing and the reissue are more similar than they are different though the original has more top end air and crunch, while the reissue has greater bottom end weight. I can understand why Ringo would prefer the tom sound on the reissue but he might be somewhat disappointed by the polite snare’s lack of “crunch” and “pop”. I kind of was. However at the same time it’s measurably clear that Mr. Martin applied only minimal “global compression” to the mix, as did Miles Showell, in his ½ speed master.—if he applied any at all.

Top:remix "Mean Mr. Mustard". Bottom: same, original pressing
I should also tell you that I sent a 96/24 file of this original version of Abbey Road to Showell at Abbey Road back in February at his request to use as a reference. He said it was okay to tell you. He also said Giles Martin did not use the files, which does not surprise me. Why would he? He had the original tape to use as a reference!

It’s in My/Your DNA

If you’ve been listening to a good pressing of the original mix for decades and switch to this one you need to make a sonic adjustment to something that’s at this point almost locked into your sonic DNA. The original was cut far hotter and is therefore louder so to get the reissue “going” and make a meaningful comparison you’ll need to crank it up somewhat and be prepared for a “listening into” rather than a “coming at you” experience.

When the boxes arrived I was having a phono preamp installed and we dropped everything to listen. The immediate reaction was (and these are the words one guy used) “What happened?”

It took more than a few plays and even a reduction in tracking force on the Ortofon Anna D from 2.4 to 2.2 grams get the top end to sing and the bottom end to not be too heavy and sluggish.

When I first played the CD version in the deluxe box there was more top than on the record, but not the kind I like, and more crunch but of the “sizzle” variety. Once I’d gotten it all sorted out I was up until 1:00AM last night giving each one final play.

My conclusion about the vinyl reissue is this: aside from a few minor mysteries including why the top end cymbal sound in particular was so reserved (nor soft or dull!) throughout (the bonus album top was all there) and why, despite the more robust bottom end, Ringo’s kick drum hits on “Sun King” were both attenuated in level and lacking in the original’s distinctive “pop”. These “in the DNA” events probably stuck out more to me than to those who haven’t spend 50 years listening to this record!

Mr. Martin has again produced a worthy reissue of a classic Beatles album that improves upon the original in some ways, while diminishing it in others—especially in terms of raw, aggressive excitement and some of the original’s airy, atmospheric mystery (that’s the only way I can describe it). Yes, the crickets are from a sound effects library, but on the original you are transported outdoors. Not so on the reissue. Is that important? No. It’s just something I noticed because I’ve been noticing for 50 years the “outdoors” (even if it’s a delusion).

The reissue’s even balance and coherent spatial organization will impress even the most skeptical listener though it may take more than a few plays to “get” it. Once acclimated even lucky owners of the original U.K. pressing should find this reissue a worthwhile and enjoyable addition to their collection of Beatles vinyl.

The Bonus Tracks Rule!

The deluxe 3 LP vinyl box set includes two LPs of live takes from the sessions as well as home demos, Lennon’s “The Ballad of John and Yoko” and McCartney’s “Goodbye” home demo that became a Mary Hopkin hit that I didn’t know (so sue me). Hearing these songs performed live minus studio overdubs and embellishments is a genuine thrill and enhancement to the pleasures of listening to the finished record. Like the “Esher Demos” from The Beatles, these 2 LPs are not the kind of “play once” curiousity that often gets packaged with “the goods”. These are part of “the goods” that you will surely play repeatedly and maybe even sing along with when the space for vocals opens up.

The Deluxe 3 CD, one Blu-ray, Perfect Bound Book Edition

While the vinyl box includes a useful fold over “one-sheet” that describes in reasonable detail the outtakes and other bonus material, the deluxe CD/BD box set includes a “no expense spared” 12”x12” hard covered book every Beatles fan and Abbey Road aficionado will want to have. If I sound like a Ume salesperson, deal with it. The four discs (3 CDs, one Blu-ray) are included in pockets die cut into the inside front and back jacket.

I did listen to the CDs (which in addition to the CD resolution mix include the same outtakes and bonus material as what’s on the LPs) and I played the Blu-ray on my home theatre system. It includes the 96/24 full resolution files that I’ll have to get a computer BD drive to extract, as well as DTS-HD and Dolby Atmos surround mixes. Call me old fashioned, or go ahead and just call me old, these didn’t do much for me compared to the plain old stereo remix. But that’s just me.

The book includes “The Route to Abbey Road”, Kevin Howlett’s essential essay accompanied by photos you will want to see, adds historical perspective plus a wealth of interesting and useful information about the album, The Beatles and those final months. That’s followed by a super-detailed Track by Track description that adds so much worthwhile information your head is likely to explode, with yet more incredible photos and finally an “And In the End” essay that puts a satisfying capper on the entire “life in the day” of The Beatles.

As with the group’s break up, when you’ve completed reading the book and looking at the pictures you’ll feel somewhat lost and perhaps feel sorry it’s come to an end but happy to have been along for the ride and even happier that you can rinse and repeat as often as you wish.

Nothing in the book explains how this happened or who moved it, so that mystery remains unsolved. There’s always more.

Music Direct Buy It Now

ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
Johnnyjajohnny's picture

I can easily answer that question, and you, DaveyF, are welcome to answer it as well if you like, but since I asked Fremer first I would like to see his response first before I answer it myself.

Johnnyjajohnny's picture

"Digitization is an audible process no matter what the resolution."
Fremer, this claim can EASILY be proven or disproven (I've already explained how to DaveyF), and you've been asked to do this for 35 years, yet you've never provided a single piece of reliable evidence. All you have is talk and anecdotes.
All the actual evidence that has been accumulated throughout the years show that CD resolution is completely transparent within audibility and that no one can reliably tell hi-res apart from the same master properly converted to CD quality. Yes, there's distortion and noise on CD as well, of course, but no one has shown an ability to hear lack of musical content above 22 kHz or distortion or noise -96 dB below full scale. If you think you're able to reliably demonstrate this, then please do - we would all like to see it.
So, the question is still the same:
What, if anything, could make you change your mind about your claim that digital isn't audibly transparent to the source/that digital audibly degrades the sound?

ViciAudio's picture

... there is no such thing as "a digital file pressed onto vinyl". Cutting a lacquer is always a totally separate "mastering" process in itself. In the case of a digital source, to master to vinyl it is always converted to analog in the first place, and then it is at least always adjusted for vinyl groove spacing and other parameters, and that's just the mandatory part of the process, usually almost all vinyl cut from digital sources today undergoes several other steps (EQ, dynamics, etc) that are specific to the vinyl cut mastering. Also, people tend to confuse the digital source used for mastering with the commercially available high resolution digital version... it is very rarely the case. There is one digital master, from that master all commercially available formats are mastered. They are not using format A mastering to master format B... So, it makes little sense to talk about digitally sourced vinyl as if it shares the same mastering as the correspondent digital format release. It shares the source, but not the mastering. The mastering is what makes it sound good or bad, it's a big thing :)

DaveyF's picture

Digital master...imo belongs on a digital format. Is vinyl a digital format?

ViciAudio's picture

.. and by all means, I'm 100% in favor of full analog audio production for vinyl :) However, this question doesn't make much sense, audio formats, technologies, recording/mixing/mastering techniques, are not supposed to belong anywhere, they are just tools at our disposal to achieve the best possible results for a specific task/project. There is no one single "tool" that is always the best option for all jobs. If, for a given recording, having a digital step in the production makes it sound much better than not having a digital step, then it's better to use it... if it doesn't do anything to improve audio quality, then it's better not to use it. Fortunately there are thousands of great examples where NOT using any digital step is actually the best technical approach that provides the best results, and that is probably true for most analog recordings... but it's not for 100% all of them, depending on several factors, some actually benefit from digital tools being there to help with certain issues. As always, for every tool, there advantages and disadvantages, so nothing is perfect...

Johnnyjajohnny's picture

Still, it was a very simple question for Fremer (and DaveyF, if he wants to answer it):
What, if anything, could make you change your mind about your claim that digital isn't audibly transparent to the source/that digital audibly degrades the sound (thereby also implying that analogue is a better technology)?

McFaden's picture

I grew up with the US Capitol in all it of its forms. Always thought it sounded good, i guess. Then a couple years ago I got a beautiful UK first pressing that I giddily announce is even earlier than Michael's (side 1 second lacquer, 2nd mother, 5th stamper, side 2 first lacquer, 2nd mother, 8th stamper). There is a world of difference between those two pressings. Michael is right, there is nothing like those early pressings. I anticipate this reissue will in fact be different but I'm excited to listen and see if it's as good despite the difference.

Also, I think they should reissue Let It Be, I mean why not at this point. BUT regardless of whatever they do with the mix they have to release it as the original UK pressing with the box and the book. That would be a good move in my book.

(Am I mostly posting in order to flaunt my early Abbey Road pressing? No, well... maybe. Maybe.

...Yes.)

Michael Fremer's picture
Love it...
firedog's picture

They are working on a new version of the movie, recut from the many hours of original movie tape.
So pretty hard to believe there won't be an accompanying album, with lots of bonus tracks etc.

firedog's picture

Michael-
Spring for a nice BR capable USB external disc spinner at Amazon - about $100. Then rip the hires and tell us how it sounds :).

Question after that: if you had to live with the hi-res only, how would you feel?

Michael Fremer's picture
On its way!
rwwear's picture

Most newer BluRays have copy protection. You probably have a program to defeat it?

Michael Fremer's picture
I think that's for movies. I'm hoping that these discs were made for accessing the files.. I'll find out.
rwwear's picture

It's been my experience in the past Bluray audio uses the same copy protection as movies. Some of the early issues didn't. I hope you get lucky and experience none. I believe DVD Fab offers a program to remove said protection.

Michael Fremer's picture
It's not possible to rip the hires from the Beatles Blu-ray. Perhaps with a software "work around". I'm working on that now. But I've been able to pull hires files from 2L (la label) Blu-ray discs so clearly UMe or Apple Corp doesn't wish to give that opportunity to people who spend all of that $ on these reissues.
firedog's picture

Software: DVD audio extractor
Passkey for Blu-ray

firedog's picture

Michael-
Did you ever get a rip of the BluRay? I can dropbox it for you if you want.

firedog's picture
wgb113's picture

As with the Pepper and White album reviews this one covered all of the bases for me, a Beatles fan not born until they were 3-4 albums into their solo careers.

The Beatles are THE reason I ever got into stereo equipment. An uncle that's only 10 years older than I had a big influence on my early music leanings and after being into hard rock/metal of the late 80s he introduced me to The Beatles. He had a modest system - Advent Baby IIs, Sherwood receiver, Sony TT, Tape Deck and CD but it was set up "properly" and in a dedicated room. He'd record the local FM station's Breakfast With The Beatles every Sunday when they played the rare outtakes culled from various bootlegs. We'd go to record shows and search out Yellow Dog CDs for the same. He'd point out all of the different little things to listen for that were at different depths in the mix.

It was ear opening! So much so that as soon as I saved up enough money I invested in my own stereo system - NAD integrated amp and CD player with NHT SuperOne speakers. Anthology Vol. 1 was my first CD and the first thing played (and played and played) on that stereo. I was thrilled.

I've got the Super Deluxe CD box and 1-LP on order with my local. Looking forward to diving in this weekend!

Thanks Michael!

Robin Landseadel's picture

My dad bought Abbey Road and the original cast recording of "Hair" on the same day, which was weird considering he was into Sinatra, Ella, Nat King Cole, etc, & had plenty of nasty things to say about the Fab Four. Guess he must have liked "Something". We played the record a million times on the sort of record-eating gear popular at the time. A few years later, when I worked at Wherehouse records, would regularly go to a nearby "Big Ben's"—Wherehouse's attempt at the sort of scale and level of stock one would find at a Tower. I grabbed all of the UK imports of the Beatles catalogue, also the wonderful German pressing of Magical Mystery Tour. Eventually I started collecting the Japanese imports [with shrieking EQ] of the Beatles records, along with other LPs like the Charlie Parker series on Japanese Verve. But the most interesting/weird pressing I encountered was at Peter Howard's "Serendipity Books" in Berkeley. I don't know why Peter Howard liked me, but one day the irascible proprietor handed me a copy of Abbey Road, in immaculate condition, of a pressing from the Netherlands. Excellent sound, very quiet surfaces, good bottom octaves. BUT! "I Want You/She's So Heavy" had a fade out [instead of rising to pure distortion and then cutting off, like Xenakis' "Bohor"], and there was no "Her Majesty" on side two [?!?].

Serendipity Books was one of the World's great bookstores, the link is to a New York Times article noting its closure in the wake of Peter Howard's death back in 2011:

https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/serendipity-books-r-i-p/

weirdo12's picture

The text has moved...

McFaden's picture
Michael Fremer's picture
The Apple moved. The text absolutely did not!
weirdo12's picture

The wall moved...better? :D

Keen Observer's picture

Use the wall as the reference frame. Compare the apple to the background pattern. There's been no movement of the apple relative to the wall. If the text is one's reference, then you'd have to say both the wall and the apple moved. Michael just lacks simple pattern recognition skills I reckon.
The 1979 MFSL release, for example, is a very different story. The text has moved, but there's been a drastic move of the apple.

weirdo12's picture

"Compare the apple to the background pattern. There's been no movement of the apple relative to the wall."

Russo7516's picture

What about Prssing PCS 7088 ?

Steve Smith's picture

"The original U. K. vinyl edition does things the remix doesn't and vice versa. It's nice to have both."

Amen. I get so tired of this 'either/or' noise when there is 'and'.

swissguy's picture

Michael, do you have the MFSL version for comparison?

swissguy's picture

Just watched your video.

DrJB's picture

Your observations about the snare drum, attenuated top end, and sluggish bottom are threatening to harsh the Beatle birthday buzz that I have going at the moment.

You see, yesterday, my wife presented me with the 2014 mono version of Sgt. Pepper for my 64th--a very appropriate gift on several levels! It was the only mono release that I was missing from that series, mostly because I wasn't paying attention in 2014, and now they are going for stupid money. She found a sealed copy in Italy for $150 and it arrived exactly on my birthday. I cued it up on my mono-dedicated deck and I still haven't come down from that experience. I was hoping for a repeat performance on Friday, but if it's not to be, I can always put on the recent mono versions of Rubber Soul or Revolver which I think could be two of the best engineered rock recordings I've ever heard (yes, to many in my generation, the Beatles are a rock band).

A lot of what you said about the new Abbey Road could be applied to the most listenable version that I currently own--a '79 MoFi release that I find enjoyable, if not somewhat disjointed. The overall presentation is like the instruments and voices are floating in space without any mix glue applied. I have the two official CD versions from '87 and '09 along with an orange label Capitol release from '76 (be kind, it's all I could find at the time), and, similar to your report on the new version, the MoFi Abbey plays much quieter than my other releases. This can happen when gain reduction (compression) is avoided or only lightly applied during mixdown and/or mastering in order to preserve the dynamic range. It can also account for the timid transients and snare drum attack which would normally benefit from judicious application of a mastering compressor.

Since I have not heard the new version (is it Friday yet?), everything I've just said could be totally and utterly misguided, but I guess it's my way of tempering my expectations.

Tomasz Olkiewicz's picture

Thank you for this excellent, riveting review. I cannot wait to get my copy. Look forward to meeting you in Warsaw this fall.

ananed's picture

I just played my 2009 CD. While it's probably won't touch this 50th anniversary vinyl, it was nice to hear exactly 50 years later through a quad of KT120's. Thank's Michael!!!

BTW, This VW cover is sold out but you can download it...

https://www.volkswagen-abbeyroad.se/home

feldmanacrossthehall's picture

I am heartbroken. Just came home with the brand new 50th anniversary Abbey Road remix LP. Lovingly washed and vacuumed the LP in my RCM, and couldn't wait to put it on my turntable. But the sound coming out of the vinyl is horrible! All muffled and lifeless. "Come Together" sounds as if someone stuffed thick cotton balls into my ears. The bass is boomy and flabby, the highs are muffled, the mids recessed. Heartbreakingly bad.

I rushed to put on my original Abbey Road pressing, worried that maybe my stylus was damaged, but much to my relief, the original LP sounds crips, sparkly, with amazing, hefty taut bottom end! My stylus is still in great shape.

What on earth were Giles and his crew thinking? Did the original tapes deteriorate this much over 50 years? Is it possible that I got a botched vinyl copy?

Also, what happened to maracas in the outro of "Come Together"? On the original LP they're amazing, plainly audible in the right channel. On the new remix they're simply gone, vanished for some reason.

Sad day...

firedog's picture

Can clearly be heard in the right channel in the 24/96 from Qobuz.

Michael Fremer's picture
I felt as you did first play but over time I managed to not compare to the original but enjoy it as is and I found it very sensitive to tracking force! I know that sounds crazy but that's what I found. It's also cut at a much lower level (25 minutes side 1) so if you just go back and forth you will definitely not like the remix. It must be played with the volume turned up relative to the original!
feldmanacrossthehall's picture

Hmm, very interesting point. To be fair, I was impressed with their sensible choices in staying rather close to the original mix (did not like the liberties they took on some tracks from White Album).

Listening to it again, it sounds to me like those digital recordings where engineers tried really hard to make it sound like vinyl. Soft knee and all that. But it still does not gel with me. It lacks that essential visceral dimension. Because to me, the Beatles were all about rock and roll, that kick in the groins. After all, the name of the band itself contains the word BEAT!

ananed's picture

Sorry, maybe you could past this into the previous post

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a29234607/volkswagen-beetle-beatles-ab...

David Martin's picture

Thank-you Micheal for your time and, input on complex and, varied subject matter. For me as a young person, the purchasing of this Beatles release was memorable. All of the record bins in the music dept. at the local White Front Were all Abbey Road records. Up one side and down the other. (Not) the End, Dave M.

Martin's picture

First up, I have an original UK first pressing of Abbey Road, Apple off to the side and all, which sounds great.
Plus a second, "-2U" press. Which also sounds great.

This morning I purchased the HD tracks download.
Which on my Sennheisers here in the office anyway, sounds great.
Will run it through my system this evening. Yes, a very good DAC.

The thing is, in general, why on earth would I get digitally sourced vinyl when I can get the source files? And bypass all the issues associated with vinyl.
It's a generalisation I know, but digitally sourced vinyl must be one of the biggest wanks perpetrated on the music buying public.

Michael Fremer's picture
I disagree. For many reasons....
jazz's picture

Would you mind shortly giving your main reasons what you think why it makes sense to play hires digital by vinyl? Thanks!

jazz's picture

Sorry, I now read two of your reasons on the first comment page (better resolution than CD and probably better DAC at the recording studio than at home)...but is there anything else when comparing the vinyl to a hires file of the album why you would recommend the vinyl in most cases of such digitally sourced vinyl?

DaveyF's picture

+1000

Martin's picture

with all the outtakes.
All the ones I've had a listen to so far sound great.

From the mixing and mastering, this is a great job.
Love it.
Like I loved the White Album deluxe edition.
But. It's still 96/24 digital.

StonedBeatles1's picture

No Comment

-George Martin..

firedog's picture

Sounds fantastic. Can easily hear all the detail, there's good space between the instruments (not too much), and it still has a sort of warm sound that was part of the original.

The more powerful bass/drums is not overdone and also is an improvement.

I usually listen to Abbey Road with the 24/44.1 2009 version over a system with very good bass. So hearing prominent bass isn't such a huge change for me.

But this remix is really good.

Well done, Giles and team.

Now if my box set will just arrive....

Macman007's picture

Will the deluxe book you show only be in the digital box and not the vinyl box,..I'm calling them that,.. assuming its a box set. The 3 LP set will only include the new remix, and the 2 demos LP's? I've looked all over for a concrete answer, maybe I'm blind. Seems kind of pointless and backwards if it is not included with both sets, rewarding the digiphites with a DVD and a book, but the loyal vinyl guys dropping their coin on the 3 vinyl set get stiffed.

In my case it makes no sense for me to buy the digital set. While I would read the book, and might watch the DVD, the CD's would never get any play. I own the 2009 CD Stereo box, the Mono CD box set, and the original '87 CDs. I never listen to them. My CD box sets have all but one title still sealed the mono Sgt Pepper. I've got millions more miles on the LPs which the CD's will ever see. Not even my 87'cd's received very much play. The CD's never seem to sound as good.

If I want to hear the boys in the car, it'll be on a cassette copy made from the LP on a Nak Dragon, and not on a CD. I do own and play CD's that sound good, but FWIW, Beatles music never sounds right on them. My one regret (2 actually) was buying the Stereo and Mono CD box sets and not the Mono vinyl box, and prices are beyond what I could pay to get one...but I digress

Why would they NOT put the book in the deluxe vinyl box? I was all set to buy a copy pending Mikes review, not I'm not so sure..

Apologies all around if this question has been answered, or I missed it..

stretch35's picture

yes, book only in cd bluray set. UME wants you to buy both if you want the book.

Macman007's picture

Thank you for clearing that up. I am having the same thoughts,seems they want you to go for the Trifecta, Deluxe vinyl and digital plus the picture disc just for kicks. I'll be going for the vinyl for now and add the digital box later. There is too much other vinyl out I can get with that extra 80-odd dollars The picture discs never sound great, but they look cool framed on the wall, and make great conversation starters. It would be nice if Apple/UME limited the number of picture discs pressed. That way one day they might actually be worth something. Not that I'll live that long!

By the way, does anyone know if any of the new AR anniversary releases are limited runs, like the Mono vinyl box was? I'm really peeved at myself because I missed out on that one, and prices tripled or quadrupled. I'll probably never get a chance to hear or own one, I hear it's the best set to listen to out of all of their releases except the original UK Mono's.

Just curious, how does the 50th anniversary AR vinyl compare to the 2012 stereo vinyl? It's got to sound better, even though it's mixed differently from the 2012 stereo and the original UK vinyl.

Pages

X