The Beatles Stereo Vinyl Box Set: advice

I'm not aware of such fine grain filtering.
I'm set up to get an alert any time someone posts vinyl for sale. That issues a lot of alerts, but I find it's not too many.

When something desirable appears, it's often gone in minutes - no chance if you are not getting alerts.

 

I agree that it really isn't appropriate to include the 2017 remix in the box, but can easily believe it would be done officially. Searching for Pepper vinyl online shows the 2017 is much more common, and it is getting harder to locate the 2012 version because of this. On Amazon I had to search for the bar code 5099969942617 to find it.

Perhaps they are now assembling the box with whatever common pressings they have warehoused, as they did with the BC-13 box. If the outer cardboard wrap is removed, is there any statement on the box itself that these should be from the 2009 remasters?

 

Yes, buy it. It’s the best.

 

Yes, in the book.

 

...and it won't necessarily guarantee great sounding albums. The analog re-issues of the "red" and "blue" proved that.

 

I'd do some serious comparisons before dumping any of those era German pressings. With exception of one or 2 MAYBE, the sounded far and away better than any of the US Crapitol stuff and the better UK pressings, which I know folks here will call sacrilege for saying anything beats the UK originals. They do, and a 13-19 year old has the best ears he's gonna get, even if his gear still has lots of growing up. My modest mid-fi system of the time sounded amazing playing those German Pressings. Now taking Rolling Stones, anything from the 60's the UK cuts were the go-to. The US London fake Stereo sounded just bad, really bad.
Even if I have all the German Apples from that time, I'd still want the stereo and mono box sets. If nothing else, you have working versions, and can save play wear on the more precious copies for that evening when you are enjoying that special Single Malt Scotch or primo Wine yo can only get once a year.

 

And there's the problem. I wouldn't mind about the stereo LPs being digitally sourced, had they used hi-res files (96khz up)

 

You could also get the LP’s individually. For The White Album I would get the 1978 UK white. For Abbey Road I would get the UK first pressing. For Let It Be I would get the 1992 Wally.

 

They already have the 24-192 flat transfers of the stereo masters for every single original title, if I remember correctly from reading the posts here. Use those tapes, touch them up minimally, IF needed, solely for purpose of cutting an Acetate for each title. Additionally, I think I remember reading here, that there were titles they used the flat transfers as-is, because they felt there was ZERO room to improve their quality, even compared to when the tapes were fresh in the 60's. That speaks volumes to the quality of the recordings back then, not to mention the heartiness of the magnetic tape stock EMI used back then.

Typically, there is some HF roll off as the tapes age, someone like our host Steve could tell you how many Db's of which frequencies in relation to the age of the tapes themselves. There is also possible signal decrease over the first 24-72 hours after being recorded. From then the signal remains stable (fairly) all things being equal, which they are not always.

Another major plus is that SSS (Sticky Shed Syndrome) and LOL (Loss Of Lubrication) only affected certain newer back-coated tape formulae', IE. Ampex 406-7 456-7. Random glue transfer from seeping splices are the next danger to navigate. IIRC, ONE of the early tapes had seeping splice adhesive issue, where damage was POSSIBLE (unknown if it was cleaned off or in fact damaged the oxide surface) Sean and the guys at Abbey Road decided to pursue a different source for that particular title's the Hi Res transfer.

Anyway, 192-24 transfers are in the can so to speak. Some judicious EQ work to make the files nominal to cut each lacquer, and Bob's Your Uncle. You have your Hi Res file based Stereo vinyl box set, without the huge 'from scratch' cost, if they had to start the process from scratch. Pretty sure that's why the fellows went that route, what 10 years ago give or take. Now having the files all ready to go is far and away a different proposition from getting the record company to plate stamp and package the set. How many boxes, what to charge, who is the demographic, how much profit is in the endeavor, are all things that go into the decision. The technology and the demographic are taken care of, as is the financial backing and the audience to pay for them. Getting Apple, along with the surviving Beatles and their estates, together with the record company is the uphill battle to be fought.

As new still sealed unsold 2012 Stereo Boxes are getting rarer in the wilderness, we MAY see the Holy Grail Hi Res based Stereo vinyl box sooner than later. Of course there is the current worldwide financial crises and Pandemic to contend with. This may work to their advantage, as with everyone being cooped up at home, buying and selling of popular media on vinyl would sell briskly, IMHO. I don't think selling 30,000 sets in short order wouldn't be a problem. The reason the Mono Vinyl box sold out so fast and the Stereo Boxes are still out the 8 years on is based on no mystery. Quite simply, folks laying out their coin wanted AAA transfers same as the Mono vinyl box from 2014. Failing that Hi Res based Stereo vinyl box again IMHO, would have sold out much faster, perhaps faster then even the coveted Mono Vinyl, which your's truly has yet to secure, much to his chagrin.

Those with the 24-44.1 based Stereo Vinyl box will take a hit financially, their value will drop in the short term until the Hi Res boxes sell out, then things would likely correct themselves. Either way, there will never be a shortage of demographic ready and willing to drop their coin on the next big Beatles based releases, especially those the put the best possible sound quality in the hands of every day man and woman. In this case, with a CD/SACD Hi Res file release, you'll essentially be placing a master key to Apple's tape vault into the hands of everyone willing to shell out their respected dineros. And why not? To allow the listener to experience the Beatles audible feast in the same quality EMI Abbey Road, George, & Giles Martin, Geoff Emerick, as well as names not mentioned is worth whatever the price of admission.

I'd expect such exotic fare, pressed at Optimal on 180 gram vinyl to conservatively list for around 550$ to start, climbing quickly to 4 figures from there, as the limited level of stock drops, same way the Mono Vinyl boxes did.

 

Could you give these responses of yours a little more thought and detail please... These quickie, tossed-out posts really annoy me...

 

The best stereo box I have heard is the 1982 MOFI Japanese "The Beatles-The Collection." Unfortunately quite expensive now. I have a UHQR Sgt Pep, and the Sgt Pep and the MOFI box is close. Only the MMT on that is substandard. For that, I recommend the German or Danish Horzu real stereo mixes more than any box set. Except for original pressings in great shape, nothing beats the Mono Box. Stay away from the 2009 remasters as much as possible IMO. I don't think a badly mastered box is worth 1 cent.

 

The Past Masters LPs to my ears sound overly compressed and digital, very unfortunate as I was looking forward to hearing many of these tracks in well mastered stereo, especially Rain, but I was disappointed. It is flat and dull. The Mono Masters LPs on the other hand, all AAA, are glorious.

 

Not sure what people mean when they say something sounds "digital", but compressed the Past Masters LPs are not (or any of the 2012 stereo reissues, for that matter). The dynamics were left intact, no limiting at all.

 

People hear digital when they know it’s digital. It’s commonly referred to as “Fremer’s Curse.”

 

Sorry, but I beg to disagree. I did a side by side comparison of Day Tripper from my old VG UK copy of "Collection of Beatles Oldies" and from the Past Masters LP, and the old one blew away the new one. Each instrument was clear, the cymbals rang, the vocals were crisp. Maybe the new one wasn't compressed, as I don't know the terminology and the audio science that well, but I am saying it sounds flat and dull, without proper definition of the various instruments. It sounds like it lacks dynamic range to me. That's why I used "to my ears," as I really do not know the technicalities. But I have my musical ears, and that is what matters to me. And, I am sorry, I can hear a reduction in warmth in digitally mastered LPs in most instances without being told, usually instantly. Some things sound digital, and I have never met Fremer, and formed that opinion long before I ever heard of him. I think there are a few people besides Fremer and me that can hear it too. The Emperor is wearing clothes this time around.
Some records, like the MOFI of Brothers in Arms, The 50th Anniversary of Forever Changes, The 2014 Spoon reissue of Can's Tago Mago, all reportedly have some digital in their development, but all sound amazing, as good as any analog LP I have. So I am not saying digital sound is inherently worse, it is not. But it is noticeable by me, especially on the incredible sounding Brothers in Arms. And sometimes, when coupled with a flat and dull soundstage, it becomes audibly inferior in quality. And that is how I feel about Past Masters. Give me the Mono Box, the Japanese MOFI or original pressings of Beatles records whenever possible. Still looking for that great stereo copy of Rain, if anyone has any suggestions. Maybe the UK export Hey Jude?

 

For my part, I wasn't doubting you. I believe you hear that, I'm just saying I'm not sure what sounding "digital" means, because it seems different people interpret that in different ways.
Also, there are many reasons why something can sound like you describe, regardless of the source. Michael Fremer was adamant that the recent Beatles singles box was sourced from digital because it sounded digital to him, but the technical engineer and the project manager revealed it was AAA except for three songs.
As you said yourself, digital can sound good and analog can sound bad. I'm a little skeptic that people can "hear digital" (unless the resolution is very low and there are audible artifacts, which is very rare).

By the way, I have a VG+ original UK stereo Oldies but Goldies and I never liked the sound.

 

My stereo Vinyl box arrived today (shrinkwrapped) and I too have a 50th anniversary remix as my Sgt Pepper. Not happy.

The book binding was trashed too i.e. the cover was loose and the pages were just flopping about.

 

Yeah, I was just making a joke about Fremer’s Singles Collection snafu but thanks

 

Bad show man, I'm sorry to hear that... That one almost surely should be going back, I would think.

 

Good points, and not to beat a dead horse, but there is a richness and warmth in my analog only LPs that is completely missing in my entire CD collection. Don’t know what that difference is , but I call it “digital.” I am sorry that you do not hear that richness, but that does not mean it is not there. I didn’t really hear it until I upgraded my system. I have stopped listening to my hundreds of CDs. Maybe I have been brainwashed by the crafty Mr. Fremer.

 

I’m in Australia, they’ll only reimburse $32 for the return postage....which would be in the $100’s I’d imagine given so big and heavy the box is.

 

Oh, I do hear richness and warmth in sound in some releases, but some of them are analog and some of them are digital. I'll be compeltely honest here: I can't tell the difference. I have good and bad analog-sourced records, and good and bad digital-sourced records. I can tell the difference between good and bad records, but not between digital and analog.

That said, AAA is usually an incentive to buy a release. Only because I understand that digital adds one more step between the master tapes and the final product. But I have AAA records that sound worse than other digitally sourced.

 

I’ve never seen Rubber Soul on German Apple label from the 70’s/80’s. Do you have a photo of it you can share

 

Yes.
Remastering The Beatles

"The transfer process was certainly treated with the utmost care. Because of their importance, the analog masters had been scrupulously maintained and archived. All the Beatles tapes are in fantastic order, the multitracks as well as the quarter‑inches. For the transfer and archiving part of the process, we did it song by song. We'd transfer the first one, go back, clean the whole tape path again. Beginning of each week, we'd de‑mag the heads. We had a speed reader on the capstan all the time so we knew it was running at the right speed. We'd line up and then we'd always play through, manually checking the azimuth. The digital files were recorded in Pro Tools at 24‑bit, 192kHz through a Prism A‑D converter."

 

I just got the stereo box as an anniversary gift from my wife.
How do I determine if it was pressed at Optimal or not