Beatles Remasters on Vinyl (part 9)

Wow! Even worse for those seeking import versions. I guess. Sorry for that Rainbo.

 

Look on the bright side.

With all the static, noise, fluff and occasional elements of sanity generated here, based on sheer volume of electrons sacrificed, working time spent... etc., etc.

Someone might think, "Hey, there is a market for 192/24 downloads"

And...

--> The flat transfer 192/24 files turn up as downloads on HD tracks !!!

 

And the vinyl junkies can press their own

Vinyl to fondle and to play. And good sounding vinyl

And when you roll your own, you even get some say in quality control

 

Basically he's saying it's pretty good, better than expected, but not nearly as good as it could have been.
It's a mix of approval that it sounds as good as it does, with disappointment that with access to the tapes, the corporate machine didn't knock the ball out of the park the way it happened with the Dylan '60s box set.

 

Dylan's mono box is one of the best re-issues that I ever owned. Too bad I sold both CD and LP boxes..

 

Questions for THIRD... (somebody else may know this too, which is fine)

Just had a thought (I'm sorry it's GEEKY, but then again most of this is!). There is a lot of discussion regarding the frequency of the digital files used. Some folks have been nice enough to explain that, in essence, all digital files work the same and that a 96/24 file and a 44.1/24 file contain the same information between 0 and 44.1 -- the 96/24 file would contain information between 44.1 and 96 (really 22.05 and 48 - they're doubled for stereo) that the 44.1/24 file does not.

There's also been an explanation that regardless of the source (44.1 or 96), a low pass filter is used and the cutterhead does not even get let alone cut frequencies above a certain point (not going back, but it was around 22 or so... near enough for discussion). So, it is reasoned, that the 44.1 files are not in actual fact bettered by 96 files because they impart precisely the same information to the cutterhead which is about all it handles under optimal circumstances (even analog tape). Of course, that now has lead to a debate regarding truncation of overtones that exist in an inaudible frequency range that the cutterhead does not reproduce.

Sorry for the buildup (I thought some catch up after a bazillion posts was appropriate) - Here's what I'd like to know if you (or anybody else) can offer some insight.

1. Some folks have said that frequencies above say 22 have been cut to vinyl, for instance, in the form of a 50 khz subcarrier for CD4 (quad recordings) - is that accurate? Is it done in another way? (Half speed maybe?)

2. HOW MUCH spectral information is ACTUALLY being lost on these Beatles recordings? Is this a moot discussion? Did the vintage Abbey Road signal chain pass frequencies and record them to tape that are in this 22 to 48 khz range? Is there ANYTHING even on the tape to preserve and pass along to a cutterhead assuming there isn't a low-pass filter? I'm curious, because so much of this conversation seems to revolve around philosophy and tends to get a little preachy. I personally would like to know whether we're arguing the finer points of not attempting to reproduce a bunch of white noise or something like that. It's been a while, but I do not recall that much of the equipment (or the tape decks) were built to deal with the kind of frequencies we're talking about. Those rooms were built to make records - and the range we're discussing is outside a usable window. I can't imagine that too much time was spent worrying about this frequency range, let alone a guarantee that it's even part of what even exists. Others will know better (some will bluster and guess) -- but I'm curious.

 

I'm getting pretty sick of Beatles music, right about now.

 

Wow.

Sent from my AT300 using Tapatalk 2

 

I worked in record stores in the 70s and saw many many warped records especially Decca Mca and the double LPs were the worst. Quadrophenia Yellow Brick Road. Horrible

 

.....and flutter.

 

Man - I stopped listening!

I'm happy with my set - I had to replace "Beatles For Sale," but now that I have I really think it's great. I just checked in to see where the conversation has gone, and I'm not really surprised at it's current state. People LOVE THE COMPRESSION because it's MAGICAL! Hey listen - that's cool! I'm not throwing my old records out by any means... Let's just stop kidding ourselves why we buy these things. sh.tv seems to have been this place where a certain duality exists -- people cannot decide whether to moralize about flat transfers and retained dynamic range or warmth, magic and glow.

"I can't hear the sweat on the singer's brow..." -- spare me!

My latest issue, and I've seen others have this same problem, is that the box doesn't really fit in my Ikea shelving unit that I use for vinyl storage. I've kind of got a nice thing going with all my box sets, but this stubborn sucker doesn't fit with the rest so it's sitting on top of the furniture instead of in it -- where I had hoped to put it.

I started replaying some Stones from the 1964-1969 box set... I like them too.

 

I keep reading about compression, compression, compression....those old UK stereo albums just aren't that compressed to begin with. Some of the mono mixes, yes, but the stereo mixes, no. You guys are overstating it by far.

 

Add Past Masters and Magical Mystery Tour to that short list! The complaints about the former have been very few and the latter not-at-all that I've seen!

 

You make me Dizzy Miss Lizzy

 

They were cut at half-speed.

 

(Excuse me if you got the answer already.)

The records are imported from EU.
For the domestic market they add the Japanese booklet (mainly translation of the book) and "obi"s
for each LPs with the box set.
Obis are also attached to standalone LPs.

 

So then the Japanese set is the same pressing plant as the EU set, but with Obis. Alrighty then.

 

Nah - it's there, but you are correct that it's not overdone. I think the original pressings sound AMAZING. That said, I think they've got a bit of that color and glow and certain things are just a bit more forward.

 

Because I don't have any other vinyl copies of this record. I don't have the time and money to have a mint first presssing, in mono and stereo, of every record that I'd like to own. You can take my observations for whatever they're worth, or not worth, to you. My comments were primarily intended as a "thank you" to Sean.

I will say, that, having now heard three of these new LPs, two of which I have been able to compare to my analog pressings of the same titles, my quest for yellow and black Parlophone Beatles vinyl is over. If a mint tube-cut copy of Beatles for Sale fell into my lap at a reasonable price, of course I'd buy it. But these new records sound more than good enough to me, based on my sum total of experience of listening to the Beatles on vinyl, that I don't feel the need to spend crazy money looking for perfect copies of the original/first-stamper/tube-cut/German holy grail pressings anymore. Your mileage may vary, and, if it does, hey, that's one less guy out there looking for those copies and driving the price up.

 

OMG...That is madness! I will be getting my replacement set from Amazon.ca tomorrow, they had to refund me up front for box #1 so they could re-charge me for box #2 so that it had an invoice and would not be held up or taxed by customs. The refund hit before the second charge so there is no out of pocket expense to me at all. Really pleased with Amazon's attempts to deal with this fiasco. I hope they are not losing too much money on this. Don't we have any lawyers here on the forums that can start a class action lawsuit again Rainbo and/or Capitol Records? If I did MY job half-a$$ed, I would be held VERY accountable if not fired.

 

Yeah, but let's note that people tend to go on and on about how great Die Beatles is, presumably because it lacks the EQ and compression of the UK Please Please Me.

Are these remasters not more in the spirit of Die Beatles with their more neutral presentation?

 

I'm surprised that it took this long for this to be posted. Good luck with your lawsuit. But if Amazon sent you a replacement set, what damages are you going to be asking for from Rainbo and Capitol?

 

Thanks for the clarification on that ... appreciate it.

 

Don't misunderstand me --

if you look back at my posts in these threads you will see that I am very much pro-remasters and precisely for the points you make here. I really do appreciate what I gather is their neutral presentation and preserved dynamics. I am merely saying that it's ironic, given the amount of talk on this forum about the value of neutral presentation that there have been so many strong negative comments in these threads regarding the sound of the new records. Many have stated a strong preference for the originals and their reasons seem to consistently come back to aspects of the old records that revolve around their LACK of neutrality. It's ironic.