2009 remasters vs DESS

Bootleg audio discussion for anything John, Paul, George and Ringo
Patrick Healy
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 7:36 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 13 times

2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by Patrick Healy »

(This falls between Beatlegs and Official Releases, but admins please move it if needed)
Before his Archive Series, in 2009 Dr Ebbetts heard samples of the then-upcoming remasters, and he said:
The fact of the matter is, the Dr. Ebbetts material does not - and will not - sound better than what is coming commercially in September. People I trust agree with me. The remasters sound remarkably well balanced, with solid, punchy bass, smooth mids and not-to-harsh, yet crisp highs. In comparison, many of the Ebbetts masters fall short - weaker bass, dimished mids, and often too-bright highs.

It's a given that the remasters will not please everyone, but they will be good enough to make the Ebbetts catalogue solidly inferior.
He used this as justification to shut down the label, evidently considering it redundant.

I don't agree. I much prefer his Blue Box Let It Be, for example, to the 2009 remaster of it - much darker and deeper.
To be clear, I am not saying every pressing is better than the remasters, but that it is wrong to say that the remasters are objectively better than the whole Ebbetts catalogue.
Does anyone share my view?

I also wonder if there was bias from the fact that he heard earlier samples, especially since his line - 'I made mine because the 1987 CDs were bad, but the remasters are brilliant' - eerily echoes EMI's and also many audiophiles now say that the 1987 CDs are better than the 2009 CDs in some cases.

But then it gets worse...
Suffice to say, I would not release the BLUE BOX set today if new remasters were already commercially available.

I would have no need.

And if my CORE SET is inferior, I don't wish to have the rest of the catalogue branded as such either.

Therefore, it is time to put it all on the shelf.
So the Blue Box DESS set is bad enough compared to the 2009s (which I don't agree with) that he may as well not have any catalogue at all, including foreign releases and so on???
Again, it really does feel like someone at EMI has asked him to shut it down - something like 'we give you early access but you shut down your whole label.'
I just can't really think of any reason to shut down the entire thing, including stuff which was not covered in the 2009 remasters.
(He claims the US albums were covered by Capitol officially, which is true, but he conveniently forgets that Yesterday and Today never was with its original mixes, leaving his needledrops - or at least someone's needledrops - required to have those mixes...)
User avatar
Ziggy C
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:10 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: 2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by Ziggy C »

You make some excellent points.

To which I would add that each of us has our own listening scenario, set-up, and preference. Some of us add additional EQ or sound processing to derive the best enjoyment for ourselves....even if what is presented, whether the 2009 CD, or a first-play needle drop, or whatever,...is purported to be "the best possible version."

The things that lead many of us on this forum to prefer one version over another (and I am making a presumption here) are due to a number of things:

1) Age. I turned 27 again a few years ago, for example. My Dad, who is in his 80's can not discern the difference between lossy vs lossless.
I should apologize here because I am also full of all kinds of energy, libido, imagination, etc. And am preparing my band for a return to the stage in the near future. But our ears,....our ears, man.... Age is not meant as a detriment or insult. In most cases, I've found its quite advantageous.

2) A major limitation in what we can discern has to do with our sound systems. Transduction. Conversion. Amplification. Speakers. All of these things affect what we hear.

3) The material itself. Digital copies beget digital copies. And with every copy there is the possibility of minor errors, which then beget more minor errors, etc.

4) Mood. Sometimes I am in the mood to hear a particular version regardless of someone else's opinion of whether it is superior or inferior. One example of this is the LIVE Peace In Toronto album. Yoko Ono vs Oh No Yoko.

I love and appreciate the work of Dr. Ebbets. I have not put it on the shelf, so to speak. I break it out from time to time.

Rant over. I'm going to have another shot of gin now....
Norm Deplume
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2021 3:56 pm

Re: 2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by Norm Deplume »

I have no idea who Dr. Ebbetts is, but I always presumed that EMI does know who he is and slapped him with a Cease and desist. I think EMI agreed to not continue with any action against him if he endorsed the 2009 releases and shut down his activities.

Norm
User avatar
Lord Reith
Posts: 4602
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:22 am
Location: BBC House
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 3953 times

Re: 2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by Lord Reith »

The 87 cds aren't all bad. The first four are, and the two remixed ones are, but after that they are all great and way better than the 2009s in my opinion. Also the two remixes were not used on the Canadian release so we actually have all albums bar the first four.
Patrick Healy
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 7:36 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: 2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by Patrick Healy »

That's exactly what I'm saying, it strikes me that it was less his own decision than the statement made it seem.
Even if there was no explicit deal it would be a bit odd to hear them early and then publicly not endorse them.
And as LR says, if the 87s were generally better than the 09s then howcome Dr Ebbetts started his operation after the 87s, then shut down before the 09s completely out of choice?
Kusaywa
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 1:54 am

Re: 2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by Kusaywa »

The Ebbett's still serve a purpose... They totally blew the US Albums Box by using the remastered tracks instead of the original Capitol mixes. Sure, if you have the previous 2 Capitol boxes, you get 8 original US albums, but what about AHDN & Y&T? And MMT would have been a nice addition. Remasters may sound better but your missing out on some unique mixes, warts and all!
User avatar
beatlesfanfromsop
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:56 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: 2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by beatlesfanfromsop »

Does anyone know if the Past Masters tracks from the 2009 UK Stereo box set & The Mono Masters tracks from 2009 UK Mono box set
are remixes as all the other tracks are from both box sets,or are they the original mixes?
Mike
skynet
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:35 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: 2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by skynet »

beatlesfanfromsop wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 8:37 pm Does anyone know if the Past Masters tracks from the 2009 UK Stereo box set & The Mono Masters tracks from 2009 UK Mono box set
are remixes as all the other tracks are from both box sets,or are they the original mixes?
Mike
Everything on both 9/9/09 box sets are remasters NOT remixes, even Help! and Rubber Soul stereo versions are remasters of the remixes of those 2 albums that George Martin did on the 80s, those are the only 2 stereos from the boxes "officially remastered and remixed" (although both "original" stereo mixes were included as part of the mono box remaster as well), in addition the only albums fully remixed/remastered are the ones for which an SDE has been issued (Sgt Pepper, "The White Album", Let it Be and Abbey Road) but those are a different story

Regards
Last edited by skynet on Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:44 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Jukka
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: 2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by Jukka »

I dig the 1987 CD versions because they don't have NR.
User avatar
beatlesfanfromsop
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:56 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: 2009 remasters vs DESS

Post by beatlesfanfromsop »

skynet wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:30 pm
beatlesfanfromsop wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 8:37 pm Does anyone know if the Past Masters tracks from the 2009 UK Stereo box set & The Mono Masters tracks from 2009 UK Mono box set
are remixes as all the other tracks are from both box sets,or are they the original mixes?
Mike
Everything on both 9/9/09 box sets are remasters NOT remixes, even Help! and Rubber Soul stereo versions are remasters of the remixes of those 2 albums that George Martin did on the 80s, those are the only 2 stereos from the boxes "officially remastered and remixed" (although both "original" stereo mixes of both albums were included as part of the mono box remaster as well), in addition the only albums fully remixed/remastered are the ones for which an SDE has been issued (Sgt Pepper, "The White Album", Let it Be and Abbey Road) but those are a different story

Regards
Thanks for your response.
What I read on the web some time ago was not correct about both UK 2009 box sets.
I would assume what I also read about something being done with the vocals on all of the tracks
is also untrue.
Mike
Post Reply