Album Reviews

A 24 TRACK MACHINE WAS USED FOR THE FINAL EDITING AND SEQUENCING ACCORDING TO LEWISOHN.

Tell Mark Lewisohn Abbey Road didn't have a 16 track at the time, much less a 24 track. And there would be no need to compile an album on a 24 track. 4 track machines were used to crossfade one song into another, or they simply played the two tapes into and recorded the resulting crossfade to another 2 track machine.

The next two Beatles albums, Abbey Road and Let It Be, were done on 8 track machines. 24 track machines didn't even exist in 1968.

And I don't understand how anyone couldn't identify Yoko's voice until this remix. That's just silly.

A very good article. I remember well when The White Album came out. It was different. It was a grouping of songs from 4 separate people with the help of the others. I loved it but it was less of the Beatles and more of a collection of songs from 4 artists, John, Paul, George and Ringo. They did correct this singular collection with the next two albums, that were more from The Beatles as a group effort, than the four that were starring at the beginning of a break up.

Feel free to remove them. My iPod kept reporting an error, so I kept trying. :)

Another favorite waiting in the advance order queue. And many thanks for the great review. Nice to know it's another winner, like the 50th Pepper.

I have to ask - how does it compare to the '78 UK white vinyl?

The article's last sentence cracked me up...Thanks for that. Well spun. LOL!

Michael, how did you like the new stereo version compared to the mono in the box set?

i) OK, not the most important question, but still: Is the poster the "censored" airbrushed version, or are Paul's pubes intact? Michael, inquiring minds need to know.

ii) What's most annoying to me about this otherwise-praiseworthy project, especially given the precedent set by Steven Wilson's terrific "Defnitive" Yes BD-As, is that the WA Blu-ray is being made available only as part of the most expensive package. As great as I'm sure the LPs sound, as interesting as the Esher demos are, the BD-A is the format I'm really interested in. And I hate that obtaining a copy will force me to buy CDs & albums that will likely be played once, if at all. Maybe Tidal will offer the 94/24 versions, but there will likely be no other way to hear Giles' 5.1 mixes.

As far as the Kinfauns tape official release sounding "plastic," let me share an experience with its bootleg incarnations, of which there have been several, with the KF tape sometimes packaged with other material.

I hate .mp3, but I received a CDR from a friend with a particular KF bootleg title that sounded great - airy and ethereal. I downloaded (don't tell anybody) several lossless .flac KF versions because I could not locate the identical bootleg title in lossless - and these versions all sounded one-dimensional and "blah."

Surely, I thought, a lossless download of the exact title would be best! But when I finally downloaded one months later - it sounded like the other "blah" lossless versions and not like the .mp3 burn that I cherished, though it was demonstrably the same release. How'd that happen? Was there something beneficial in removing information? Could this experience be relevant to the sound of the official release?

That must have hurt.

Rubbish..

Are the 4LP and 2LP versions both mastered by Miles S. at Abbey Road and just pressed at different plants? Or are they both mastered differently also?

Wow - you aren’t kidding about “Long, Long, Long” - what an incredible upgrade in imaging, clarity, and gorgeous dynamics. The result of all of this, is that the emotion in George’s voice and the performance as a whole is far more impactful.

As Don Corleone said in the godfather, Look what they did to my white album, they made a mess of it. Loud vocals,soft instruments,switched channels, all I wanted was the album remastered keeping the same tone and character, just cleaner and clearer with higher resolution. Mikey, you forwarned us about sgt pepper but this one got me, a lot of money for a nice book.

Now I've got an original UK st top loader,mono reissue,red japan mono,blue box stereo,purple capitol,original US apple st, and german weiss. Which is best?

Oh I also have a cd and a cassette version. I sort of like the cassette version played on my old Akai tape deck.

Michael, I'm always finding your reviews right on the money, but this time you caught me by surprise. I don't think I'm hearing what you're hearing.

Like everyone else, I could barely contain my excitement while waiting to grab my copy of the 50th anniversary White Album reissue. I knew it's going to be a remix (not a big fan of remixes), but I was hoping that at least it will deliver the improved sound quality.

I went for the 2 LPs (I'm not a big fan of alternate takes -- certain things cannot be 'unheard').

Now, it could easily be that the 2 LPs release is inferior to the more lavish 4 LPs, in terms of pressing quality, and I hope that's the case, because my copy of the 2 LPs verges on unlistenable.

I'm comparing it to several copies I have (most of which have been procured in the 1970s). I'm doing comparative listening on the medium quality stereo chain -- Heavily modded Systemdek IIX turntable with Jelco 12" tonearm with Nakamichi cabling, Ortofon OM 20 cartridge into iFi Micro iPhono 2 phono preamp into DSP 2000 preamp (via Audioquest Golden Gate interconnects) into DPA 200s power amp (via Audioquest Red River interconnect) driving a pair of Magnepan MG-1 IMP modded speakers (via Nordost Blue Heaven speaker cables). Fairly revealing system that boasts tonal neutrality and razor sharp imaging, tall and wide soundstage and convincing dynamics.

When listening to the old White Album pressings, I get plenty of sparkle, rich and fairly elaborate soundstage, and lean and taut, but very deep bass.

When listening to the 2018 remix, I hear lush, warm and cuddly sound, with plenty of bloom, exaggerated mid-bass, and deadened sparkle.

I'm mystified. It sounds as if the original tapes had a lot of hiss which the remix crew intended to remove and in the process chopped off the transients. I honestly find that hard to believe -- I mean, it's only been 50 years, tapes do not deteriorate that quickly.

Or, seeing how the contemporary trend in speaker design is to really go overboard with boosting the highs (probably addressing the hearing loss that baby boomers are experiencing as they age), the remix attenuated the highs.

Another theory of mine is that the remix crew wanted to transform the White Album to sound closer to how Abbey Road sounds than how it originally sounded in 1968. I mean, there's gotta be an explanation for such drastic alteration of the very nature of the sound of that album. There's gotta be a good reason for changing its character.

I think you are right that "Long Long Long" is the ultimate litmus test, since that song suffered most alterations compared to the original. This may come as a shock, but I vastly prefer the original mix. It is mysterious, eery, evoking spiritual seance, while the remix is just a soft, mellow ballad.

Overall, the 2 LPs remix I'm holding in my hands is a barely recognizable, pale shadow of the mighty White Album. Yes, it is a pleasant sound, no doubt, but it's the kind of a sound that is catering more to the 'audiophile' crowds, to those listeners who enjoy the sound of Diana Krall's albums, which you can play in the background during a sit down dinner without the fear that the music might interrupt frivolous conversation.

What we really need is an equivalent of the 2014 mono remaster. Go back to the original White Album stereo master tapes, follow to the letter the notes engineers made during the prepping for the pressing, use highest possible quality equipment and highest quality virgin vinyl, and please give us the AAA remaster of the White Album in stereo!

If so good and holy, then why is the lead guitar that pops in at about 2:13 in "Back in the USSR" so greatly diminished as to be non-existent compared with McCartney's vocal? It's not like this on my US 1970s LP pressing nor on my British early 1980s pressing. Rather than "Long, Long, Long," this moment sets the tone and the bar for the remaster as I heard it. Where were your ears, Giles? Not hearing the vinyl, I'll swear.

from https://recordcollectormag.com/reviews/beatles-50th-anniversary-edition

Q&A:MILES SHOWELL Mastering Engineer, Abbey Road Studios

What’s the difference in the way you approached the mastering of the vinyl and CDs?

The process is similar. However, there is an extra step for the CD, which is the digital limiting. Now that we seem to have reached something resembling a truce in the loudness wars, there is a lot less limiting going on for the CD than there was a few years ago. This can only be a good thing. Giles and Sam’s new remixes were high resolution digital and I kept it high resolution all the way through; only dropping the resolution to CD specification for the CD master. The master lacquer discs were cut from the high resolution non-limited mastered files. I am pleased to say these same non-limited high resolution files that I used to cut the vinyl masters are also on the Blu Ray discs.

In playing Wild Honey Pie on side 1, I noticed obvious speed fluctuations that were not in the original mix and certainly sound unintended.

Also, although I can't locate it now, I'm could swear I read of this problem in some print or digital article, to the fact that Capitol/Apple/UME would issue replacements when available.

*** Does anyone have info to share regarding this problem? ***
Any info, help, suggestions, or comments would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Don Roderick
Tuxedo, NY

I like The White Album remixes for the most part.The only track that really lets me down is While My Guitar Gently weeps....Drums, in particular the bass drum, no longer have that hefty volume to support the descending line..fills are faint to. This is most jarring when listening to the track in context following previous song. Like Gilda once said, Oh well, there's always something.....