Can you compare the sound of the Beatles 2014 Mono Vinyl vs. 2009 Mono CDs?*

24-bit sampling rate? They should have used Dobly.

 

Yes. You are.

Everybody has a "price point" that they're willing to pay for any product. For different people different things have a different acceptable price point. I recently had to pay $50 to replace a Doctor Who DVD that I lost in a fire. For me, to complete my collection, that was a reasonable price point. If it had been my mom looking for it... She *never* would have paid that much.

It's a problem all product manufacturers face... finding the sweet spot where the following equation is solved: selling price = acceptable price to the majority of the public > manufacturing cost.

Raising a stink because someone else's acceptable price point is lower than yours is silly and not the least bit productive.

And I got my (replacement) Mono box, unopened, (and it's absolutely NOT one of the Chinese pirates) for $90 off eBay a few months ago.

Your mileage may vary.

 

What if the market for the mono box hadn't changed though? I realize that this is completely hypothetical, but: what if the Chinese boots had never got to market, EMI wouldn't have printed so many 2nd pressings, and the vinyl box had never been released. I'm assuming, that under these circumstances the CD mono could very well be worth >$200 (maybe over $300) today.

So if the supply of the CD Beatles Mono box was low (which obviously, it's not), would these same folks who are "willing" to pay $70 be interested at all in the product if it was >$150? That's great that you got your "replacement" box for $90 - that's a great deal. Imagine that it would've cost you >$200 though - would you have still bought a replacement, or would you have just "downloaded" the files or whatever so that you could enjoy the music?

I know that I personally would easily have paid >$200 bucks again for this great product. Obviously, YMMV.

My point is, did you really want to pay $50 for that Dr. Who DVD? I'm sure that if the DVD was only $10 on the market you would've been glad to get it for so cheap. That's awesome that the mono box is so cheap right now, but what if it wasn't?

 

The 2014 US box monos are a bit louder, guitars more prominent, more lively sound in general. The 2009 monos sounds flatter.

 

Dobly was killed by Bellatrix.

 

Thank you

 

I thought VHS killed Bellatrix

 

Beautiful post, with nice affirmation from Steve. I think it's important to to take a moment and really appreciate posts like this.
With the burning passion that this "hobby" inspires, you rarely see this kind of truth stated simply and gracefully, with such a lack of ego.

Well done back2vinyl!

 

Apparently, I somehow managed to swap the CD & LP spectrum data, so my underscored sentence above should read:

In this case, the 2009 CD seems to have slightly less bass, a tad more midrange, slightly less lower highs & substantially more upper highs than the 2014 LP rip.

My apologies for the mishap...

 

A couple more tracks from the mentioned 2014 LPs AAC sampler versus 2009 CDs (these 2 LP samples again featured reverse polarity):

Birthday:

- Spectra & delta:


- Delta (closeup):



Hey Bulldog:

- Spectra & delta:


- Delta (closeup):

 

Oh, *I* would have paid > $200 for a new Mono box. My wife wouldn't, for example. In fact, she yelled at me for days over spending what I did on the first Mono Box. She didn't bat an eye for a $90 replacement, though. Different things have different value to different people. For her, the Mono box is valued somewhere between $90 and $200. For me, it's valued higher (not sure how much since I've not had to make that decision, yet.)

That Dr Who DVD was originally sold for $17.99. I didn't want to pay $50, but gladly did to finish out my (new) collection. But, yes, I did search for months to find a less expensive one before committing. So, the price it was worth to me is > $50... but not by much. Would I have paid $75 if that was the cheapest I could find? No. It could stay on my alert-list at that price. I know that because I passed up several selling for that price prior to committing to the $50.

So, the point is... Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)... Wait, no, quoted the wrong song...

There is a blue one who can't accept the green one
For living with a fat one, trying to be a skinny one
And different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and Scooby dooby doo-bee
Oh, sha sha, we got to live together​

 

I'd Like to have some of the mono discs, but not the whole box.

 

I've only played a few tracks from the new Magical Mystery Tour and I can appreciate the good sound. I don't think my equipment is "really good" (all of it is much older than five years, except my stylus) but it's good enough.

 

But it looks so pretty

 

IMO, the data shows that the posted rips of 2014 mono LPs are actually quite close to 2009 mono CDs, with very slight differences (when listened to at equal perceived loudness)...

 

Sure, the specs say that. Are you really going to tell me that CD players don't each impart their own sonic signature onto the sound? Really???? That sounds like what the late Julian Hersch from High Fidelity used to state. All CD players sound the same. Just pick out what features you want. Uh huh. Cartridges change the sound, but so do the various designs of dacs.

 

I agree. I like to use the best measurement device known to man------ my ears.

 

Despite being described as meaningless, here is another spectral comparison of 2 tracks from the posted earlier 2014 mono LPs AAC sampler & 2009 mono CDs FLACs... As usual, the excerpts are at equal perceived loudness (with zeroed DC offsets). N.B. both LP & CD rip waveforms this time appear to have the same polarity (unlike the ones in my previous 2 posts, which featured inverse polarity).

Revolution:

- Spectra & delta:


- Spectrum delta (close-up):


Norwegian Wood:

- Spectra & delta:


- Spectrum delta (close-up):

 

I paid $75.00 for my legit box due to damage to the box itself. took the cd's out of the box put them and some others in a little wooden crate works fine for me

 

Well, I guess I should just throw all of my Beatles CDs away then, since the only vinyl I have are my parents old original albums from the 60s. Good bye, entire collection of '87, stereo, and mono CDs. I guess a lifetime of listening to the Beatles on CD was a waste since I apparently never heard them the right way.

 

I don't know if it's meaningless or not, but I certainly don't know what it means. This doesn't seem to show any consistent eq differences does it?

I have noticed the inverted polarity on some of these and really wonder why that happens. I think it's the CD that's inverted, because the LP matches the original LP on those I've looked at. Probably doesn't affect the sound.

 

You seemed to have learned your lesson. "You can deposit your Beatle trash here. Don't forget what the Beatles have said"

 

In the low bass area there is a bit of inconsistency, however, in the mids plus lower & upper highs the results are quite similar for all tracks compared, IMO...

 

unless you're now self-identifying as me, you should probably calm yourself.