No new official remixes planned

[billylentz]

They all lack an undefinable spark or energy the vintage mixes had.

Some of them lack more than just energy. "Mind games" on the recent "Gimme some truth" compilation actually buries some guitars parts so deep that they´re virtually absent.

[billylentz]

I've seen a number of comments on here about the official remixes being very poor. Could someone tell me why they feel that way about them. They seem fine to me but that's possibly because I'm not an audiophile.

I think most of us will have different thoughts on that; so of course I´ll speak only for myself.

Put a good headphone on and make a playlist of, say, the new mix of "Let it be" against the original mixes. "Two of us" (new mix) then "Two of us" (original) and so on.

One thing that will instantly pop up is how the new mixes practically eliminate the stereo separation. You´ll also notice how lower frequencies are greatly augmented so that they will give an artificial bass feel for those who listen to them on a weak cell phone speaker. The instruments are much less defined; they´ll be more of a sound mess, sorry, mass.

This has been the rule for almost all of the more recent releases: less stereo separation, more lower frequencies, less instrumental definition, more overall intensity. That will result in a more dark and flat sound.

And why is that? My hypothesis is that they believe this is more suitable for cell phone speakers, poor in-ear phones and bluetooth boxes, which in general have two speakers but for all effects are actually mono, since the speakers are not really separated anyway. It´s a sound that can emulate a sound power or hide more efficiently the limitations of even a good bluetooth box. It may be good for a party or background listening, but as far as a dedicated listening goes, it represents a impoverishment of the sound. Actually, the fact that in a casual listening they differ so little to the original sound makes them even more pointless to me. "Remixed, but still sounding like the original", like someone pointed on one of the accompanying books, maybe "Imagine". Why, then? There´s no valid point.

Because, aside all, it´s a commercial and not an artistic decision. While these two goals of course aren´t necessarily incompatible, personally I think it´s art that has to be on the center of it all, and, all questions aside, there´s simply no artistic reason to do most of these remixes. A new remix has to add something to the work; it has to justify itself somehow. Why do we remix something? Because for some reason it wasn´t properly made originally and sounded bad; because some new element will be revealed; because the appreciation of the work will be improved somehow. None of that it the case with the Beatles remixes, which are flawless, in the sense that even their flaws are part of something that defines what is a good mix. The mixes made by the Beatles team still are the reference for what an ideal mix should be. So simply, in general, there´s no artistic point in redoing them. But that´s more of a moral restriction. The new mixes could be good, and the fact that they exist simply to justify a "New 2021 mixes!" sticker on the box would still bother me.

[Tex]

I've seen a number of comments on here about the official remixes being very poor. Could someone tell me why they feel that way about them. They seem fine to me but that's possibly because I'm not an audiophile.

I mainly object to the over cooked ones with excessive EQ and added ADT effects like with Pepper 50. Also hearing things pushed way up or down for no reason and the dumb mixing goofs. I think they got the right balances in the 1960s. All Sam Okell and Giles Martin had to do was fix the wonky stereo panning and tweak the balance and EQ slightly but otherwise leave them as they came out originally but no. My belief is that a modern remix should sound like a better VINTAGE mix that's been sitting on the shelf since day one and you listen and say "Holy cow, why didn't they use THAT mix instead?"

[Lord Reith]

And why is that? My hypothesis is that they believe this is more suitable for cell phone speakers, poor in-ear phones and bluetooth boxes, which in general have two speakers but for all effects are actually mono, since the speakers are not really separated anyway. It´s a sound that can emulate a sound power or hide more efficiently the limitations of even a good bluetooth box. It may be good for a party or background listening, but as far as a dedicated listening goes, it represents a impoverishment of the sound. Actually, the fact that in a casual listening they differ so little to the original sound makes them even more pointless to me. "Remixed, but still sounding like the original", like someone pointed on one of the accompanying books, maybe "Imagine". Why, then? There´s no valid point.

Yes, I agree. In the same way that the original mono records were mastered so that they'd sound good on cheap record players and AM radio, the modern mixes are mastered to sound good on earbuds, phone speakers and mono bluetooth speakers. That is the main way in which people listen now. It is 100% a deliberate thing, and is the reason why there is such a disparity of opinion between those kinds of listeners and people like us who probably still listen to music the same way we did in the old days ie: a pair of speakers three or four feet apart or a pair of proper headphones.

[Darth Kybiel]

It's much the same as like the 90's all the sudden everyone wanted to brick wall sound and loud volume. Late 90's it was to the point where commercial CD's were loud yet radio mixes were normal. Giles said that all the albums got remixes back when they were working on Sgt Pepper and White Album box sets. There just is not any agreement on how the rest of the albums not as box sets should be released. Two disc sets got rejected last year because there has been vinyl reissues in some countries. Giles said Revolver is about the only one that he feels may have enough unreleased material for at least what he'd consider a decent 3 CD box set, but that was rejected. That was on a YouTube interview he gave during lockdown.

[Lord Reith]

It all went wrong when cds came of age. Up till then, there were technical limits to what could be laid down on media. With digital, it suddenly became possible to have as much bass or treble as you like, so artists began putting more and more bass content in the mixes trying to top each other. And the "remastering wars" also saw a lot of pointless top end added to old mixes so they would sound superficially "better" than the old mixes. Reminds me of the "Pepsi Challenge" in the 1980s, where they realised that in a blind test most people would choose Pepsi over Coke simply because it's slightly sweeter. But that didn't translate into better sales for Pepsi. In the same way, most people in an A-B comparison will always go for the mix with the most bass and treble and loudness because it sounds "bigger". But usually in the end people just go back to the original mixes, like what happened with the remixed Rock And Roll Music album and later Help and Rubber Soul.

[beatlbay]

Well, for what it's worth, I get the new stuff for the bluray 5.1 mixes. To my ears, they sound great on my system. Granted, I'm probably in the minority and, for the most part, I agree the CD mixes are a bit lacking, but at least, we are getting some great outtakes if you get the box sets.

[Lord Reith]

I like The White Album and Abbey Road quite a lot.

I didn't really see the point in remixing Let It Be. It seemed a bit of a low act to just obliterate Spector's contribution. He conceived that album and mixed it. But I guess they couldn't have just re-isssued his mix.

[quigatolah]

Reminds me of the "Pepsi Challenge" in the 1980's, where they realized that in a blind test most people would choose Pepsi over Coke simply because it's slightly sweeter.

Excellent analogy.

We often overlook the simple fact that the music industry is a business.
Big business doesn't care whether they poison you with deep fried bread crumbs
or irritate you with shrill music, as long as you pay.
Nine out of 10 times people will pay for crap over substance and quality.

And every once in a while, to keep the critics at bay,
they'll add a salad or some decent outtakes to the menu.

We might be the ones clamoring for the salad,
but we don't mean that much to them.

[Hummus905]

Demixing technology has come a long way. I was able to get clean separation in most albums. The biggest advancement (IMO) is the ability to manually demix tracks to fix any bleeding issues and create your own stems. RipX will present every note heard in a track and allow you to assign it to any number of stems. That means that you have hit the theoretical limit of what is possible: every sound is accounted for and you have full control over where it is placed (without introducing artifacts). Naturally, that can be a time consuming process. Thankfully, the automated tools do quite well to get your started. I just began working with a Who track (Circles) and was able to pull out the French horn into its own stem, clean up the bass track, and remove extraneous notes in the vocal track (putting them back in the guitar track).

It is worth playing around with if you have any interest. Plus, DeepRemix is on sale for $69 right now, which is one of the best deals around for a powerful audio tool.