Jump to content

Beatles remasters are here!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like Kyle (solace) said, if you convert the wavs to Apple Lossless, you won't lose any quality (why it's called "lossless") and you will have some compression. I think the compression ratios between Flacs and Apple Lossless are about the same, too, both around 60%.

 

yeah, i don't really know about apple lossless, but i asssumed that judging it's apple you'd probably have to pay for the software to convert it to that. converting it to wav is pretty stupid for an ipod, i admit, so i don't even know why i said it :stunned

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i don't really know about apple lossless, but i asssumed that judging it's apple you'd probably have to pay for the software to convert it to that. converting it to wav is pretty stupid for an ipod, i admit, so i don't even know why i said it :stunned

My usual procedure is to convert flac to wav, then use iTunes to convert wav to 256kbps AAC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With Saxophone solo by Brian Jones no less!

The Anthology version is even more interesting, about three or four minutes longer too.

 

I am so excited! I finally got my copy of the mono boxed set. I also bought the remasters for Let It Be and Abbey Road and listened to Let It Be on the way home. I was particularly impressed with the warmth of the sound on The Long and Winding Road. I felt like I was listening to it on vinyl.

 

I am listening to Please Please Me right now. In articles leading up to the release of the remasters, there were interviews with the engineers about fixing hisses, etc. in the songs. I was wondering if that meant fixing glitches in the editing process. Sure enough, the splicing hiccups in Anna and Do You Want To Know A Secret are gone. If you go back and listen to the original cd releases, especially in Do You Want To Know A Secret, you could hear where two takes of George Harrison's falsetto vocal were spliced together and it was glaringly obvious. That used to always bug me, so its nice to hear it gone.

 

It's not always so obvious in the differences, but sometimes you hear things that maybe were buried in the mix before, like guitar fills and it makes you go, oooh I didn't know that was there. Overall, I would say the sound is definitely cleaner and clearer, at least so far. It still sounds like some distortion around the edges of sounds in some songs when played louder, but overall, I'm impressed so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was listening to a wav of the remastered mono Dear Prudence before and I had a moment like Ewan McGregor had in Trainspotting when he had to try out the heroin and he was like, "Yeah, it's good. So fucking good." And this is through crappy computer speakers. Hopefully, my Abbey Road and Let it Be will come in the mail soon. I like the naked one better than Spector's, but the original is still a pretty massively fucking good album.

Listening to these songs in mono which I have listened all my life to in stereo is a little weird. There is a difference and the discomfiture of the monoses' unfamiliarity will fade with repeated listening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do all the pleasing with you

it's so hard to reason with you

woah yeah

why do you make me blue?

 

Everyone may have to wait for my 2nd listen before I can offer thoughts on these CDs because I sure can't hear remastered reshmastered over my singing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I put these on my iPod, do I lose any quality?

 

 

How high a bitrate can an iPod push these days? I would rip the best quality possible. If you can do 320 kbps, do it.

 

I doubt there'd be a noticeable difference in quality at a high enough bitrate. I ripped OGG files of both box sets at an insanely high rate and they sound great.

 

 

I thought IPODS only played MP3, is that not the case? Seems like no matter what, you are going to have a compressed file and lose some signal. I don't actually own an IPOD but was just wondering. Too bad IPOD's can't play FLAC files.

 

 

Honestly, and maybe some people will argue with me on this... but unless you have a very, very expensive listening room, I doubt 99% of the population can tell the difference between 320 kbps MP3 and FLAC.

Especially considering most iPods will be listened to in the car when you have a lot of other noise or in the house when the wife is cooking dinner and the kids are running around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, and maybe some people will argue with me on this... but unless you have a very, very expensive listening room, I doubt 99% of the population can tell the difference between 320 kbps MP3 and FLAC.

Especially considering most iPods will be listened to in the car when you have a lot of other noise or in the house when the wife is cooking dinner and the kids are running around.

 

An Audio interview with the engineers who worked on the remasters.

 

 

Beatles fans revel in B-Day

"If we can get a bunch of 14-year-olds in 2009 to really hear them, that's a very good thing," he said, admitting that it takes "a certain kind of nerd" to appreciate the sonic changes offered by the remastered editions.

 

The Beatles step into the digital age

Allan Rouse, who oversaw the remastering, said improved computer software had allowed his team to improve the quality and sound of the Beatles' catalog, including through removing bad edits, electrical clicks and sibilance.

 

"Obviously the only people who are going to notice those little things are the fans, because they will know that they've gone," Rouse told Reuters.

 

"But on the other hand, for the future generation, they probably don't want to hear things like sibilance and pop and a bad edit. It's very close to listening to a master tape."

 

Another obstacle to appreciating the changes is the dominance of iPods, he added.

 

"The sad fact of it is that so many people ... are going to rip them into their computer and put them onto their iPods, so yes, listening on an iPod you probably will find it very difficult to tell the difference."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from that article:

 

Retailers, who have seen physical music sales eroded over recent years, also are gearing up for queues around the block for both the CDs and the video game, an added bonus after Michael Jackson's death in June saw a spike in sales.

Michael Jackson died! Woohoo! Bonus! :rolleyes

 

I know that's not how the author intended it, but that passage probably could have been better worded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is Amazon the cheapest for Mono?

 

ordering online also saves tax.

Tower.com was cheaper than Amazon, but they don't currently list the mono box for sale.

 

That said, Amazon's price has now come down to where it's only $2 more than what Tower was selling it for during the pre-order stage ... so, yeah, Amazon may well be the cheapest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...