Beatles CD's on par with 24bit or not as good ?

[Gbeer7]

As your all aware I'm a huge Beatles fan. I have the stereo box set and the mono box sets, which I love.
But since getting my Sneaky DS really want the 24bit usb Apple. With a little one on the way in less that 6 weeks, money is just about non-existent !
Am I missing out on much ?

[magiccarpetride]

As your all aware I'm a huge Beatles fan. I have the stereo box set and the mono box sets, which I love.
But since getting my Sneaky DS really want the 24bit usb Apple. With a little one on the way in less that 6 weeks, money is just about non-existent !
Am I missing out on much ?

In my experience, the differences are palpable. 24 bit just feels so much more alive and engaging. I've never felt drawn into the Beatles songs the way I feel now when I put a high definition version on.

Is it worth the extra cash? If money is the issue here, I'd say sell your stereo box set and purchase the USB. You won't regret it.

[DSJR]

My take is that I can get drawn into Beatles' songs when played on a tinny tranny :D

I haven't yet compared the hi-def issues, but comparison of two CD players in my posession were very "palpable," the first player being clear but spatially flat as a pancake between the speakers, where my regular player generates a walk-in soundstage. I still believe that so many music enthusiasts/hifi enthusiasts still haven't heard just how good CD really is - just my opinion..

Finally, do please bear in mind the lack of technology on these recordings, which "even" on red-book CD is quite audible. The tape to tape bounce-down generations on so many tracks takes its toll, although I'd be delighted if going high-res stripped another fine layer of mush away.

I suppose what to do is get the memory stick when you can afford to, rip some of the CD's to the hard drive and compare the output from selected files from the sound-card into your system. In theory, the high res files should allow the tiny bit of tape hiss to be reproduced a tad better (assuming 70db from "0"VU to noise floor and adding another 10 to 15db headroom over "0"VU used as limiting on the recordings. The studio reverb would be around 30 to 40db below the mean level of the music and who knows what else has been done to the recordings in the re-issues...

[magiccarpetride]

My take is that I can get drawn into Beatles' songs when played on a tinny tranny :D

I haven't yet compared the hi-def issues, but comparison of two CD players in my posession were very "palpable," the first player being clear but spatially flat as a pancake between the speakers, where my regular player generates a walk-in soundstage. I still believe that so many music enthusiasts/hifi enthusiasts still haven't heard just how good CD really is - just my opinion..

Finally, do please bear in mind the lack of technology on these recordings, which "even" on red-book CD is quite audible. The tape to tape bounce-down generations on so many tracks takes its toll, although I'd be delighted if going high-res stripped another fine layer of mush away.

I suppose what to do is get the memory stick when you can afford to, rip some of the CD's to the hard drive and compare the output from selected files from the sound-card into your system. In theory, the high res files should allow the tiny bit of tape hiss to be reproduced a tad better (assuming 70db from "0"VU to noise floor and adding another 10 to 15db headroom over "0"VU used as limiting on the recordings. The studio reverb would be around 30 to 40db below the mean level of the music and who knows what else has been done to the recordings in the re-issues...

True, I remember in my childhood I loved all the Beatles songs played over our crappy radio in the kitchen.

What's so impressive now is how the excitement over their music only keeps growing as we're given the opportunity to hear them in much higher clarity. The 24 bit remasters are the pinnacle of my love affair with the Beatles music.

Even though you're absolutely right about the intrinsic limitations of the recording technology of that era, I still find their recordings to be freakishly present and to offer that elusive 'reach out and touch' feel to the music. Not sure how they did it, but it's there.

For example, I was listening to the Chesky Records high definition (24/96) "The World’s Greatest Audiophile Vocal Recordings" the other night, and then switched to the 24 bit master "I'm a Loser" from "Beatles for Sale", and, believe it or not, "I'm a Loser" sounded better! It just has more presence to it, whether it's because of the searing intensity of Lennon's vocals, or I don't know what, but it was way more satisfying than the newfangled Chesky mumbo-jumbo.

[Gbeer7]

Cheers guys. Think it will be something i will need to save up for. Could be a while though :(
Does sound exciting to listen to it in 24bit ! Thanks for your advice.

[DSJR]

Hey, it's wonderful music that helped define its time. I can't believe how the public allowed the lads to evolve their sound so much, but again, this was the sixties and wacky-backy has a lot to answer for ;)

[magiccarpetride]

I can't believe how the public allowed the lads to evolve their sound so much...

What do you mean "the public allowed the lads"? There is no way that the public can preclude or prevent any artist from making their art in any way they feel fit (at least today, long after the days of Inquisition, Stalinism, Gestapo or other religious/political bullying).

[Grez]

What do you mean "the public allowed the lads"? There is no way that the public can preclude or prevent any artist from making their art in any way they feel fit (at least today, long after the days of Inquisition, Stalinism, Gestapo or other religious/political bullying).

The public can prevent an artist from making their art in any way they feel fit by not buying their records.

There are many examples of fine musicians and bands who played and wrote astonishingly good music who didn't become popular and couldn't go on. The fact that the public continued to buy Beatles records in large numbers allowed the Beatles a lot of time in Abbey Road (and elsewhere) to experiment and change their style. Revolver is a huge step away from Rubber Soul, with its backward guitar tracks, as well as the sound effects on Yellow Submarine and the hugely experimental Tomorrow Never Knows.

Had this alienated the record-buying public, we may never have had Sergeant Pepper, the White Album or Abbey Road...

[DSJR]

There have been bands since who've tried to further their musical ideals and have failed to "take" their public with them. The Beatles were able to evolve and develop their music, selling millions in the process. The nearest I can think of now is Robert Plant, who seems determined to leave his main Led Zep roots and "style" behind, yet experiment with different styles, re-arranging some old Zep favourites into the bargain. The fact he's doing such a good job IMO shows the quality of the original compositions - IMO. Had Zep re-formed with Jason Bonham, all they'd be allowed to do is re-hash the old stuff as it was originally produced; any new material now would have had great difficulty being heard I reckon..

[magiccarpetride]

The public can prevent an artist from making their art in any way they feel fit by not buying their records.

There are many examples of fine musicians and bands who played and wrote astonishingly good music who didn't become popular and couldn't go on. The fact that the public continued to buy Beatles records in large numbers allowed the Beatles a lot of time in Abbey Road (and elsewhere) to experiment and change their style. Revolver is a huge step away from Rubber Soul, with its backward guitar tracks, as well as the sound effects on Yellow Submarine and the hugely experimental Tomorrow Never Knows.

Had this alienated the record-buying public, we may never have had Sergeant Pepper, the White Album or Abbey Road...

This is highly conjectural. There is no supportive evidence, other than idle speculation, that it is the public who endowed the Beatles with their creative vigor. I hold that the Beatles would've been equally creative (if not even more inventive) regardless of their success on the charts. Perhaps it was the very success on the charts that slowed them down and pushed them into making a bit of a compromise?

A good counter-case would be Vincent Van Gogh -- no one was interested in buying his art (as a matter of fact, he managed to sell only one canvas during his career), yet that didn't discourage him from being one of the most creative and innovative artists in the entire art history.

[DSJR]

I thought it was the reefers that made them more creative :eyebrows:

[magiccarpetride]

I thought it was the reefers that made them more creative :eyebrows:

That is true. Reefers work for everyone, however it was only the Beatles who were smart enough to actually smoke them. Others were too dumb/shy to try reefers, otherwise they'd be all as creative as the Beatles were.

[Stratmangler]

This is highly conjectural. There is no supportive evidence, other than idle speculation, that it is the public who endowed the Beatles with their creative vigor. I hold that the Beatles would've been equally creative (if not even more inventive) regardless of their success on the charts. Perhaps it was the very success on the charts that slowed them down and pushed them into making a bit of a compromise?

A good counter-case would be Vincent Van Gogh -- no one was interested in buying his art (as a matter of fact, he managed to sell only one canvas during his career), yet that didn't discourage him from being one of the most creative and innovative artists in the entire art history.

You've done a very good job of painting yourself into a corner.
How are you going to get back across the room without ruining all that painting work ?:eyebrows:

[Grez]

This is highly conjectural. There is no supportive evidence, other than idle speculation, that it is the public who endowed the Beatles with their creative vigor. I hold that the Beatles would've been equally creative (if not even more inventive) regardless of their success on the charts. Perhaps it was the very success on the charts that slowed them down and pushed them into making a bit of a compromise?

A good counter-case would be Vincent Van Gogh -- no one was interested in buying his art (as a matter of fact, he managed to sell only one canvas during his career), yet that didn't discourage him from being one of the most creative and innovative artists in the entire art history.

Of course it is, as is any debate not based on facts.

"Perhaps it was the very success on the charts that slowed them down and pushed them into making a bit of a compromise?"

See what I mean?

;)