Beatles and Apple settle dispute

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (49 of them)

"...the sound of a church organ, various effects (water gargling was one) and, perhaps most intimidating of all John (Lennon) and Paul screaming dementedly and bawling aloud random phrases like "Are you alright?" and "Barcelona!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Light

― pisces (piscesx), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 15:42 (seventeen years ago) link

I might get "Rain".

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 15:59 (seventeen years ago) link

should I buy a copy of Love? I am so wary of the Vegas

you should actually go to vegas and see the show. it's great. really!

(really!!!)

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 16:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Snow is more likely down here this week (xpost).

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 16:02 (seventeen years ago) link

Aspinall's said that they're working on remasters for both download and physical re-release. I just hope they take the SQ of Love as the standard to work towards, and that The Beatles kind of put an end to people making records sound like Keane / Snow Patrol / Bloc Party / etcetera.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 16:26 (seventeen years ago) link

We're too far gone to turn around.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 16:27 (seventeen years ago) link

That's my fear but not, obviously, my hope.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 16:30 (seventeen years ago) link

Also: would a 128k AAC file that has been "remastered" sound better than, say, a 224K VBR rip of the current CDs?

What do you think about this, Nick?

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 16:31 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm unsure. It's debatable. If you took Walrus off Love and Walrus off MMT and ripped them at those rates I'm pretty certain the Love one even at 128 would sound better - it's more balanced, richer, wider, the stereo mixing is slightly altered, and the frequency squashing wouldn't totally destroy the other improvements. But it depends what you listen on. And how they remaster them! If they remaster just for playback at 128kb MP3, there's little point going for superduper clarity, but if they remaster for proper CD re-release and then rip MP3s from that... I pretty much refuse to use iTunes though. I never even use Emusic. Compression as file format is way different as a sound-degredating phenomenon than early CD mastering when limits and equipment weren't fully developed/understood.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 16:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Hmm...would be interesting to see the demographics for the iTunes store. That many 50 and 60 year olds use it? That surprises me. I figured their customers were mostly in their 20s, 30s, and early 40s, and they know how to rip CDs. I mean, there are fewer steps involved w/ ripping a CD in iTunes than buying one, about 2 or 3 fewer in fact.

It's all very well for us, handful of computer-literate types that we are to think that, but really, not many people can work computers that well (at least where I come from). Sure, a lot of people can operate MS Office to a more or less perfunctory level, but if I mention Firefox or BitTorrent or Slsk to most people I know, I'd be met with some rather blank looks. I think iTunes will sell lots of Beatles things.

― scotstvo (scotstvo), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 20:58 (seventeen years ago) link

x-post

128 AAC's of the Eno & Can remasters sound different than 320 mp3's of the original issues. They're different recordings. What remastering adds is not comparable to what file compression subtracts.

Also for the piddly record I hate AAC artifacts much more than mp3 artifacts -- mp3 noise is like a layer of fizz you can kind of screen out but AAC's really screw with the sound, redistributing the frequency balance of the sound. Maybe it sounds all right for some pop but with a lot of experimental music ripping to AAC can constitute an outright remix.

Has anyone sat down with the 5.1 surround version of Love yet?

― milton parker (Jon L), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 21:30 (seventeen years ago) link

One of these days, I will.

I have the disc and some of the technology.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 21:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Believe it or not, you can actually buy whole albums on iTunes, too.

But they don't have album covers. And concept albums with no pause between tracks skip.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 23:43 (seventeen years ago) link

iTunes 7.0 finally fixed that, we now have gapless segueways and album covers

point taken though, it's not the same

― milton parker (Jon L), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 23:47 (seventeen years ago) link

iTunes 7.0 finally fixed that

They did? Good news, and I hope Nero incorporate the same technology. :)

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Tuesday, 6 February 2007 23:54 (seventeen years ago) link

Has anyone sat down with the 5.1 surround version of Love yet?

i recommend listening to it at full blast in a las vegas arena while gymnasts, roller skaters, trapeze artists and trampolinists do amazing feats in front of you. really!

(really!!!)

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Geir, Toast also burns gapless (DAO) discs.

I found this rofltastic quote from that wiki link upthread:

George Harrison rejected it because, according to McCartney, "he didn't like avant garde music."

― sleeve (sleeve), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:51 (seventeen years ago) link

it's really weird that that track never leaked when pretty much everyting else that wound up on anthology leaked in the 80's somehow

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:57 (seventeen years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.