I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

Like, is there something I can listen for that will make me really anticipate this?

Euler, like Nick mentioned way up there, the sound quality of the Love thing that just came out year was pretty awesome. You should listen to that, and if the remastering on that doesn't impress you, you probably won't get much out of the forthcoming reissues. And if you do notice the bump up in quality, you might be convinced to buy a few.

That said, I'm part of the evil plot for the RIAA to scam millions of people out of their money through what we call the "new format trick". You might wonder, "how would that trick work without someone pointing a gun at someone else's head and demanding that they purchase the same old album in a new format or be murdered?" You're absolutely correct, and that's why the RIAA pays me to point guns at baby boomer heads until they shell out the money.

and we'll just keep repeating the scam until the public catches on, and then we'll gladly take our TAXPAYER BAILOUT!

MWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, it's so perfect!!!11

how would that trick work

It's called encouraging the mass-culture fetishizing of audio (and video) fidelity.

http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/02/03/the-least-essential-blu-ray-releases-so-far/

I haven't heard much of Love (one of these days!). It's the Beatles, I'll probably buy all of these, provided I can afford it. I wanted to hear more of what to listen for, and so I'm going to try the Beatles for Sale thing pointed to above.

hahaha audiophile fidelity is so far from "mass culture" it's not even funny

Just for the sake of argument, at what point do you think the improvement of audio and fidelity should have been halted? CD? 180g vinyl? Wax cylinder? VHS? The spirograph?

VHS

i remember making mixtapes on vhs! they could be like 6 hours long

Stylophone.

As someone who volunteers in a charity shop sorting their vinyl, and only ever seems to buy from them too- any Beatles vinyl is incredibly scarce, and the stuff we get, no matter how beat up and shitty, we can sell within a day for a tenner plus (when the majority of stuff, good quality, is marked at £1 - £3).

Also, considering hopefully I should have my first full time job by the time these come out, I might consider actually buying them as I've been living off inherited beat up vinyl copies of various albums and shitty downloads of the rest. There is a generation who haven't yet bought their first Beatles albums who will end up loving them like everyone else this could be sold too the same way my older brother and all his friends drank the kool aid circa the anthology.

Would it have been better if DVDs and Blueray had been developed and introduced without any sort of advertising, so as to not encourage people to fetishize the improved fidelity?

Records should have never been created. They have killed music.

damn you, thomas edison. DAMN YOU TO HELL.

http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/images/adaccess/R/R02/R0206/R0206-med.jpeg

haha, what does "OYEZ!" mean ... ?

"hear ye"

I've said this before, but the whole nu vinyl-fetishism is hilarious to me because people are buying these brand new indie rock records from Insound for their "better sound quality" but they were all recorded digitally anyway, so it doesn't really matter what format.

Well, the product and packaging is bigger, they usually come with a free download, and vinyl is more expensive to produce. So you get more value for your money from a vinyl even not taking into account sound quality.

But yeah that stuff is so funny. Lots of my musician friends with use 8-track digital recorders or their computer to record something and then do the mixdowns onto tape and then make a digital copy of that tape to send in to get pressed onto record. I bet no-one ever sends tape to a record pressing plant anymore, it's always CDrs.

The Beatles remastering technique described above has "24 bit 192 kHz resolution," which is vastly more than what you get on a CD. So if they go from the 24-bit master to vinyl, you bet the vinyl could sound better than the CD.

But yeah that stuff is so funny. Lots of my musician friends with use 8-track digital recorders or their computer to record something and then do the mixdowns onto tape and then make a digital copy of that tape to send in to get pressed onto record. I bet no-one ever sends tape to a record pressing plant anymore, it's always CDrs.

i think even stuff recorded digitally lots of time sounds better on vinyl though, like "ga ga ga ga ga ga" by spoon comes to mind, because it's not mastered so harshly and vinyl tends to sand off some of that hissy high end.

i know a few ppl that have done all analog process but i've A/B'd stuff on vinyl and CD and it sounds better on vinyl, even digitally recorded stuff.

as far as recording digital and bouncing to tape, that's not uncommon actually, tape can give you a nice natural compression that makes your mixes hold together, the guy we recorded with (on tape) used to have some clients come in just to bounce to one-inch on the mixes just to get a little tape compression before mastering.

yeah I'm sorry guys M@tt is otm, vinyl just sounds better - doesn't matter how it was originally recorded. At this point in the game, there's pretty much nobody using an all analog process, digital is always involved somewhere along the line.

as for why this took so long: it has apparently taken about 4 years to do the actual work of remastering. why they didn't do it earlier: anything involving the beatles involves mccartney, star, ono, harrison (when alive) and his wife (now); AND EMI. there was a deal in place to have these remastered by DCC in the 90's but harrison refused to sign off. I think the multitude of people involved in agreements on anything is a horrible mess; I'm frankly surprised this ever happened at this point.

Shakey, the "vinyl just sounds better" argument when talking about digital era indie rock records is snake oil bullshit to make collector nerds feel superior in a brave new world where anyone can download a record. It's just another reason for merriweather post pavillion people to pat themselves on the back.

what's funny (haha!) is that if they had actually done remasters back in the mid-90s, they could totally STILL be re-reissuing them this year, in new NEW remastered form. I mean, look at Elvis Costello.

like M@tt I am mostly speaking from personal experience here insofar as the records we made sound better on vinyl than they do on MP3/CD but whatevs Whiney yr mileage may vary

Shakey, the "vinyl just sounds better" argument when talking about digital era indie rock records is snake oil bullshit to make collector nerds feel superior in a brave new world where anyone can download a record. It's just another reason for merriweather post pavillion people to pat themselves on the back.

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Friday, April 10, 2009 8:54 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i'm not saying across the board 100 percent it always will, but like i said i will trust my ears...though recently i've gotten a better CD player and have been buying up jazz reissues and stuff that sound FANTASTIC on CD...but overall there's a sense of space to vinyl...also it's less harsh sounding at high levels...

like i said, i think it's more that vinyl inhibits/fights a lot of the bad mastering practices that are so prevalent now.

have you ever A/B'd stuff? i mean i've done it at my place for skeptics (like my wife haha) and even they admit there's a certain quality that's gained from vinyl

i don't really think anyone should pat themselves on the back for animal collective though.

also the vinyl I have of Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga totally sounds better than the mP3s that came with it, that's a good example

fwiw no one should pat themselves on the back for anything, pride is a sin and all that lolz

(also at least part of it is that you can get a pretty damn quality record player like a Rega P1 or Pro-Ject Debut III for around $400, i think those far out-do any CD player you could buy for the same amount in terms of relative quality)

Ah yes, the love affair with distortion lives on! Those uncomfortable with full range could also just get a graphic equalizer and adjust the high end.

lol my shit sounds tight homie, no distortion

also harsh mastering actually adds distortion when shit hits the ceiling

let's put our cards on the table here - who here has A/B'd material, participated in the recording/mixing/mastering process etc.

i'll put my cards on the table right now and say I don't know what I'm talking about, esp. regarding sound quality, etc. actually, regarding most things.

i'll put my cards on the table

http://www.3ofakind.com/images/full-house.jpg

Only the former for me. I can tell an appreciable difference if I am listening super close (esp. with headphones), but since I spend exactly 0 time listening to music like that in my day to day life (an amount of time which I think corresponds to basically all non-16 year old shut ins) I think it's basically complete bullshit to pretend that these difference is something anyone should really care about. I mean so what this piece vinyl sounds a little better, I'm not going to be able to set up my turntable on desk at work or carry it on the bus with me.

i am listening to an ipod right now.

but it's not that hard! i dunno. i just usually listen to my stereo about an hour after hubby goes to bed, reading a book. am i a weird shut-in? i dunno. i go out a fair amount. it's not like IMPOSSIBLY hard to read and listen to a record or CD IMO.

how do you people WATCH TV? it's CRAZY? i only watch clips of sportscenter on my phone, way too busy

If I am reading a book or making dinner I am not listening closely enough to a record to care about the minute sonic differences between CD or vinyl. So you are special and obv there are a few like you, but I think most people (justifiably) think that this "oh you don't know what you are missing" thing is a lot of bullshit, cuz the way most people listen to music most of the time they aren't actually missing it.

true enough

i dunno i don't think i have particularly refined ears or anything, shit that sounds better just tends to sound better than shit that sounds worse

also i would say the difference between a CD on a good system and an MP3 on an ipod is WAY more than the difference between a CD and an LP on a good system

Yeah I don't think anyone would disagree that there is a pretty substantial difference between CD/Vinyl and mp3 fidelity (right now anyway.) I don't listen to mp3s at home very often and even on the bus or at work I can find my iPod at bit jarring after a while.

they talk about really good audiophile servers now for like flac and all that stuff, but they are super duper expensive, down the line that would be sweet though

It'll happen. Just to provide an excuse for all us with a bunch of 320 mp3s to have to buy them (or steal them) again.

yeah i mean hard drive space is so cheap now there's really not much actual need for something as small as MP3s...five years from now i can't imagine how much space you'll get for like $100

So if they go from the 24-bit master to vinyl, you bet the vinyl could sound better than the CD.

Shame vinyl isn't capable of capturing even 14 bits worth of dynamic range and is usually rolled off with the 20-20k range that plain CD captures entirely.

It's not about fidelity or numbers, vinyl replay is a series of happy euphonic accidents - it (can) sound richer, sweeter, warmer, with the illusion of front-to-back depth, more "air", etc. But this is partly because it's actually lower resolution than CD, and electromechanical replay just introduces all this...stuff to the experience. I still love LPs to bits. Har-de-har.

I understand the push for more bits/higher sampling rates for archival/remastering/(especially) tracking and mixing, but I'm not convinced there's any great need for it at the playback end.

MJ is on the right track. Dynamic range of vinyl - 75 dB, CD - 96 dB, SACD - 120 dB, DVD-A - 144 dB. Tape - 60 dB. Despite the fact that vinyl degrades with every play, distorts high frequencies when linear velocity changes as the spiral groove gets smaller towards the center, has at least 30 dB crosstalk and harmonic distortion, I understand why some people like that sound. Many interpret that distortion as "warmth." It's just kind of funny when they try to claim it's superior to digital.

Keep in mind that recordings have not been made directly to vinyl since the invention of magnetic tape in the 1930s. The tape, being non-linear, also creates low-order harmonics that are perceived as "warm sound". That effect is quite easily achievable through electronic means in a (yes) digital environment. It's actually a somewhat common practice in mastering to insert effects in the digital stream that will add "warmth" to the sound by adding low-order harmonics (e.g. distorting the sound). This distortion is obviously not true to the original music. However, it is an effect that older generations are used to and nostalgic for.

PBS's Wired Science show addressed this issue, but it was disappointing because the science was pretty flimsy. They had engineers Colin Miller & Jean-Marie Horvat of Animal Records, and two members of the band Great Northern do one A/B listening test to just one song randomly flipped between analog and digital. The “big surprise” was that no one could consistently tell the difference. The engineers guessed which was which correctly 55% of the time (so much for their “golden ears”), the band 53%. It’s not clear whether they tried to judge which sounded better and failed, or didn’t bother to try. They also interviewed engineers Steve Albini and Ken Andrews. Albini is no dummy, and rather than get himself into trouble, he simply said analog was superior to MP3s (duh), and mentioned how digital mastering was screwed up when CDs were first introduced in the 80s. The only thing conclusive here is that host Ziya Tong is a total babe.

Until someone comes up with conclusive scientific evidence via extensive double-blind testing that proves vinyl is superior to digital when using the same master, I say let's move on. But we don't even necessarily have go go beyond CD range. Even though SACD and DVD audio have clearly better range, it doesn't mean anyone can tell the difference. The bandwidth of CDs are 44.1 kHz sampling rate (44,100 samples) x 16 bits x 2 channels = 1.4 Megabits per second. With a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz you have an effective frequency response of up to 22.05 kHz (way above what most people will statistically be able to perceive as sound). HD-DVD/DVD-audio offers 9.6Mbps, with 128 kHz sampling rate at 24 bits. While the higher sample rates correct the distortion of high-end frequencies that occur in 1.4 Mbps CDs, those frequencies are only audible to dogs, cats and bats, who, when asked, would probably say they prefer CDs as they wouldn’t hurt their ears as much.

Additionally, the transducers on both ends of the audio chain are too limited to properly take advantage of 128 kHz, or even 96 kHz. Paul Lehrman, a composer, educator, and consulting editor for Mix magazine, points out that the frequency responses of most mics and digital musical instruments roll off at around 20 kHz. Thus, anything recorded above 20 kHz at a 96 kHz sampling rate "is probably junk," claims Lehrman. In response to the argument that it's the digital filter in 96 kHz systems, and not the extended frequency response, that's responsible for the improved sonics, Lehrman says that, in A/B tests, he has "never been able to tell, definitively, the difference between a well-constructed 44.1 or 48 kHz oversampling converter and a 96 kHz converter."

Vinyl and CD sound different; there's no reason why anyone should be questioned for preferring one to the other. Only thing I note is that I seem to get ear fatigue much more quickly these digital days than I used to with records.

The experience of ripping open vinyl Sgt. Pepper, looking at the cover up close, pulling out the inserts, studying the gatefold, reading the lyrics while it plays, etc. should be experienced by all 8 year olds.

Anyway, Within You Without You is awfully cool (and way more hypnotic) in mono vs. stereo. Not a compelling argument one way or another, but worth noting.

They also interviewed engineers Steve Albini and Ken Andrews. Albini is no dummy, and rather than get himself into trouble, he simply said analog was superior to MP3s (duh), and mentioned how digital mastering was screwed up when CDs were first introduced in the 80s. The only thing conclusive here is that host Ziya Tong is a total babe.

lolz yeah I saw this and had the exact same reaction