View Full Version : Beatles boxsets
After buying the Beatles Stereo boxset and mono, i'm concerned in a year or so they will release better quality high rez versions of stereo and mono. Do we think this is likely ? I know the stereo albums are on flac at 24bit/44.1, but will they do this with the mono's ? Have we wasted our money on something which be replaced with something better soon ?
Is it worth saving up for the Apple usb or by the time I buy it will something better come out a few weeks later ? EMI could be planning all this stuff to make us spend more money.
I'm a concerned Beatles fan here.
Stratmangler
10-11-2010, 11:05
You can bet your bottom dollar that we haven't heard the last of The Beatles in even higher resolution.
We just have to wait for the market for hi-res downloads to mature a bit more.
Then it will be down to EMI and how much more they want us to pay (again) for the same material.
Hasn't Band On The Run just come out as a 24/96 download?
Expect The Beatles albums to come out as 24/96 downloads in a few years - I don't think we'll see 24/192 files officially released, because that is the maximum resolution EMI have.
I know, but its really sad. People spend good money on the CD boxsets, then to get a better quality come out is frustrating as we have no money left. I would love a USB apple, but bit to expensive for me at the moment. i spent £350 on two box sets. How long before a 24bit mono comes available ?! Its good to hear, which is why it is hard after spending so much on the CD's.
I repeat, Red Book CD is MORE than good enough for domestic consumption - not my fault if many of you have sub-standard CD players... The general public DON'T WANT OR NEED higher resolution just so they can hear the background noise just a tiny bit better.
I reckon I know where many of you guys are regarding red-book CD. My Denon 1520, mechanically wonderful, shows just what so many of you people are missing from CD - a deep soundstage and real bass power and "authority." The 1520 sounds truly anaemic and shallow when compared with my Micro-Seiki, which is both louder and quieter at the same time by comparison, let alone the bass extension and clarity it offers.
Enjoy the CD's as released and continue to look out for ever better CD players as they come along on the used market at a good price. For less than a grand, you should be able to pick up a classic player from yonder days (heck, even the Naim CDS2/XPS is now well under £3K and that machine was a stunner if you can live with the tractor-like operation and ringy boxes). A Sony 555ES or AVI S2000MC with CD-M9 engine mech is only around £300 - £400 these days, the Sony 557 is around £500 and these still out-perform many modern machines under a grand apart from possibly the Rega ones (I haven't heard the cambridge 840C, let alone the supposedly excellent new Audiolab 8200 models).
You could of course carefully rip the files to a computer which will take the reading-pains out of the equation and then feed the output via a decent sound card or external DAC into your system that way, which apparently improves red-book fidelity apparently (CD players read in real-time and are inclined to interpolate severe errors).
Not what you want to hear, but I really don't think the source recordings are fully up to hi-res as the dynamic range isn't there in the first place and I very much doubt there's a huge amount of info above 15 - 18Khz either...
I repeat, Red Book CD is MORE than good enough for domestic consumption - not my fault if many of you have sub-standard CD players... The general public DON'T WANT OR NEED higher resolution just so they can hear the background noise just a tiny bit better.
I reckon I know where many of you guys are regarding red-book CD. My Denon 1520, mechanically wonderful, shows just what so many of you people are missing from CD - a deep soundstage and real bass power and "authority." The 1520 sounds truly anaemic and shallow when compared with my Micro-Seiki, which is both louder and quieter at the same time by comparison, let alone the bass extension and clarity it offers.
Hear, hear and spot on! It's exactly the same with my modded Sony from 1989/90 when compared to the dross posing as CDPs these days :)
Marco.
I'm currently ripping the CD's with DB Poweramp and playing through my Sneaky DS via Audiolab monoblocs and KEF IQ5SE speakers. They sound great, but with higher rez there is more quality to be had. Least i have the artwork with the boxsets. Don't get me wrong, the CD's do sound great, just spending £350 on the boxes and in a few years there will be higher rez for the same price.
Stratmangler
10-11-2010, 13:11
I'm currently ripping the CD's with DB Poweramp and playing through my Sneaky DS
The cure to expensive CDPs :sofa:
They sound great, but with higher rez there is more quality to be had.
In this case, I remain to be convinced, as extending the bandwidth and lowering the noise floor lower than many amps doesn't really count on these old analogue mainly non-Doby A recordings.
The main reason why pro's use High Res is that the digital manipulation and editing, which these albums have had in an incredible amount, both in the digital AND analogue domain, can be carried out without affecting the basic 16 Bit
(96db dynamic range) and SBM final masters.
So don't you believe that the high rez are much better ? That 16bit is enough ?
Having compared CD with original analogue master (not The Beatles obviously), I really wouldn't worry 'cos there are FAR more important things in your system which can be changed to improve the "resolution" of the CD's you already have. We're only just reaching the ceiling of Red Book reproduction and it's the analogue output stages once again receiving attention, as well as low-noise power supplies. I should also add that possibly, in a domestic CD playback situation "in real time," the CD mechs most machines are lumbered with are not really up to it, when compared with the best of twenty years ago. Transferring files into a computer and then accurately streaming them out is definitely better than many modern CD players I understand from those that know.
I've only had the DS sneaky for a couple of months. The sneaky ds sounds better than the audiolab 8000cd, but not loads.
So are you not a fan of the high rez ? Don't get me wrong i do enjoy the remastered beatles CD's. Just feel aggrieved than better quality will eventually be released, making the current boxes worthless and not the best out there. See what i mean ?
One of the main good things about SA-CD was the fact that old material could be looked at again and re-tweaked as necessary, the new classical recordings on SA-CD being wonderful because they were carefully recorded and prepared for release - IMO.
In no way am I against improving things for gawd's sake. It's just that I think that so many domestic systems have loads that can be done with them to improve the sound quality of what we have already. Some of the things I read here and elsewhere make me gobsmacked, as I was getting as good or better from cruder gear thirty years ago :scratch:
magiccarpetride
10-11-2010, 17:43
I repeat, Red Book CD is MORE than good enough for domestic consumption - not my fault if many of you have sub-standard CD players... The general public DON'T WANT OR NEED higher resolution just so they can hear the background noise just a tiny bit better.
I reckon I know where many of you guys are regarding red-book CD. My Denon 1520, mechanically wonderful, shows just what so many of you people are missing from CD - a deep soundstage and real bass power and "authority." The 1520 sounds truly anaemic and shallow when compared with my Micro-Seiki, which is both louder and quieter at the same time by comparison, let alone the bass extension and clarity it offers.
Enjoy the CD's as released and continue to look out for ever better CD players as they come along on the used market at a good price. For less than a grand, you should be able to pick up a classic player from yonder days (heck, even the Naim CDS2/XPS is now well under £3K and that machine was a stunner if you can live with the tractor-like operation and ringy boxes). A Sony 555ES or AVI S2000MC with CD-M9 engine mech is only around £300 - £400 these days, the Sony 557 is around £500 and these still out-perform many modern machines under a grand apart from possibly the Rega ones (I haven't heard the cambridge 840C, let alone the supposedly excellent new Audiolab 8200 models).
You could of course carefully rip the files to a computer which will take the reading-pains out of the equation and then feed the output via a decent sound card or external DAC into your system that way, which apparently improves red-book fidelity apparently (CD players read in real-time and are inclined to interpolate severe errors).
Not what you want to hear, but I really don't think the source recordings are fully up to hi-res as the dynamic range isn't there in the first place and I very much doubt there's a huge amount of info above 15 - 18Khz either...
The fact remains that 24 bit Beatles sound substantially better than the same material on CDs. Many people have confirmed that, myself included, my friends who had a chance to experience it through comparative listen at my place confirm it as well.
The original poster has a good point -- why were we tricked into paying huge bucks for the Beatles catalog issued on a dying format (16 bit) when only a month or so latter, the same material was offered on a superior format (24 bit)?
Not fair, if you ask me. It's a highway robbery. First we were made to purchase the Beatles music many times over on LPs (because of the varying quality of the vinyl pressings, culminating in the early 80s virgin 180 g pressings). Then, we were tricked into purchasing the same material all over again on cassettes (in order to listen to it in the car). Then, the '87 CD version. Then, the 2009 remastered catalog. Now, the 24 bit catalog. Next, 24/96 version. Then, 24/192. Then, remasters on the vinyl.
When will this gouging end? How many times are we expected to yet again pony up, while at the same time being treated like convicted criminals? Enough is enough!
Reid Malenfant
10-11-2010, 18:05
Not fair, if you ask me. It's a highway robbery. First we were made to purchase the Beatles music many times over on LPs (because of the varying quality of the vinyl pressings, culminating in the early 80s virgin 180 g pressings). Then, we were tricked into purchasing the same material all over again on cassettes (in order to listen to it in the car). Then, the '87 CD version. Then, the 2009 remastered catalog. Now, the 24 bit catalog. Next, 24/96 version. Then, 24/192. Then, remasters on the vinyl.
When will this gouging end? How many times are we expected to yet again pony up, while at the same time being treated like convicted criminals? Enough is enough!
What the hell are you on about? :lolsign:
No trickery involved, if you are daft enough to keep buying the stuff then they'll happily keep churning it out to satisfy your spending habits.
Admittedly i know where you are coming from as i am replacing a lot of DVDs i bought with blu rays & the difference is night & day. I don't feel i am being "robbed" though just because the technology wasn't available back in the day :eyebrows:
If they dragged you in the shop & beat you up & stole your money & gave you this apple USB thing you might have grounds to complain. But you decided to buy it all didn't you! You're the one with the disposable income deciding what you are going to buy, you are a consumer & if you happened to buy all those Beatles releases on all those different formats then i know who saw you coming ;)
E2A:- This may not seem relevant but it is ;) When the first LCD TVs came out with 1280 x 720 displays i stuck with my old sony widescreen CRT simply because i knew that 1920 x 1080 was soon going to be introduced. The reason for this was simply because it was already being used over in the good ol US of A :eyebrows: I still didn't buy a new 1080P LCD TV for about 2 years after they were available over here. I made sure i got the exact kind of spec TV that i wanted, rather than jumping in head first like a load of other sheep did, Baaaa :eyebrows:
magiccarpetride
10-11-2010, 20:11
If they dragged you in the shop & beat you up & stole your money & gave you this apple USB thing you might have grounds to complain. But you decided to buy it all didn't you! You're the one with the disposable income deciding what you are going to buy, you are a consumer & if you happened to buy all those Beatles releases on all those different formats then i know who saw you coming ;)
My point is this: when, in September 2009, I went out and bought the Beatles remastered box set, I had no idea, nor was anyone talking at that time about the fact that, in two month's time, they'd be releasing the same material in high def. Have I known that, I wouldn't spend my money on the obsolete CDs.
So they tricked me (and, believe me, not only me, but many other fans). This is what I'm bitching about. The dishonest marketing policies. I'm asking for truth in advertising. I feel cheated, and I resent Apple Corps. for swindling me out of my money. Simple as that.
It's the same as if, in your example, the studios were to release a remastered DVD of the movie you already have, promising you a much better, cleaner version. But then, as soon as they release this remaster and you buy it, they release the same movie in a much superior blu ray format. Wouldn't you be pissed?
Reid Malenfant
10-11-2010, 20:19
As i say, i see where you are coming from ;) What i'm saying though is no-one forced you to buy the CDs & you could have waited to see what happens before jumping in at the deep end :eyebrows: It never pays to jump at the first opportunity, always wait & see what comes along next as you never know what's round the corner.
As for the remastered blu rays i can give you a perfect example :doh: Predator was an early blu ray release & even though the picture was a huge upgrade on the DVD it does have quite a lot of noise (grain) on the disc. Apparently loads of people moaned about it so they apparently remastered it, in reallity what they did was use copious amounts of DNR (digital noise reduction) & yes the picture is vastly less grainy, but it's also lost most of the detail :doh: :rolleyes: :lolsign: (Predator ultimate hunter edition) :ner: to that...
magiccarpetride
10-11-2010, 21:39
As i say, i see where you are coming from ;) What i'm saying though is no-one forced you to buy the CDs & you could have waited to see what happens before jumping in at the deep end :eyebrows: It never pays to jump at the first opportunity, always wait & see what comes along next as you never know what's round the corner.
Perfectly reasonable approach if you're talking about level headed people who can plan their purchases rationally. But here we're talking psychiatric material -- the Beatles fans. These people are infirm, they need the nanny state protection. They can't think for themselves, they'll jump onto any hoax, just to get their greedy fingers on anything resembling the Holly Grail.:brickwall:
So Apple Corps is being dishonest in refusing to recognize that their market is a bunch of weak willed people who need to be treated gently. And yet, they heartlessly take full advantage of their patients.
Perfectly reasonable approach if you're talking about level headed people who can plan their purchases rationally. But here we're talking psychiatric material -- the Beatles fans. These people are infirm, they need the nanny state protection. They can't think for themselves, they'll jump onto any hoax, just to get their greedy fingers on anything resembling the Holly Grail.:brickwall:
So Apple Corps is being dishonest in refusing to recognize that their market is a bunch of weak willed people who need to be treated gently. And yet, they heartlessly take full advantage of their patients.
Thanks, mate. I love you too!
;)
Reid Malenfant
10-11-2010, 21:54
So Apple Corps is being dishonest in refusing to recognize that their market is a bunch of weak willed people who need to be treated gently. And yet, they heartlessly take full advantage of their patients.
It's called business :eyebrows: You are a consumer & these people want you to buy there stuff. The consequence of this is they gradually introduce new & improved stuff & because you either like it or have to keep up with the Jones's (possibly an English thing :doh:) you feel compelled to buy the latest & greatest thus perpetuating the cycle :lol:
Like i say, slow down a bit... Wait until a mate buys the super dooper stuff & copy the stuff if you can. I know that original CDs are better, take it from me as i have every single LTD edition of Fax records stuff :lolsign: :doh: But the line must be drawn somewhere, on re-issues & re-mastered stuff i think you need to be a tad more lazy in buying it. I feel pretty sure that no remasters of the stuff i happen to listen to most often will ever appear. Unfortunately for the much more common or should i say enjoyed stuff the record companies have you by the goolies good & proper :eyebrows:
& they love to squeeze them :eek: They squeeze, you buy :rolleyes:
Alex, you may have told me before, but what CD player are you referring to when compared with the hi-res mem stick?
magiccarpetride
10-11-2010, 23:51
Alex, you may have told me before, but what CD player are you referring to when compared with the hi-res mem stick?
Logitech Squeezebox Touch.
That is the exact point i'm making Alex, but you said it much better.
When your a fan and they release a new product, you get excited and taken in. Your right its hard to hold off and wait a few months to see what happens. Your a fan and want to have the latest stuff. You don't expect them to release something sounding better a few months later. Its naughty.
If the same happens with the mono boxset as did with the stereo boxset i'll be pissed off. I really want a Apple usb but simple can't afford it. If you were given the choice then that would be fair enough. Alex, i'm totally with you on this.
Thanks to a very kind soul, I've been enjoying the stereo set, but to be honest, the stereo mixes of the early stuff is so crude I'd rather have them in Mono tbh. I suspect the new stereo mixes enabled them to skip a tape generation possibly. I still maintain they're hardly the quality to sit down and analyse for sonics. The tunes and lyrics always take over, for me anyway.
DSJR, is that the Stereo CD's ?
magiccarpetride
11-11-2010, 18:32
Thanks to a very kind soul, I've been enjoying the stereo set, but to be honest, the stereo mixes of the early stuff is so crude I'd rather have them in Mono tbh. I suspect the new stereo mixes enabled them to skip a tape generation possibly. I still maintain they're hardly the quality to sit down and analyse for sonics. The tunes and lyrics always take over, for me anyway.
See, I could never understand this argument. Maybe it's because I detest listening to music through headphones. I have no problem whatsoever enjoying those early stereo mixes. And to my ears, they sound infinitely better than the mono mixes. For one, the sonic details are clearer, and also the visceral component is more present. Mono mixes, say what you will, just sound wimpy compared to the stereo mixes.
Also, these early tapes contain stunning presence and quality. I'm not buying into the 'the recording quality at that time was just not on par with bla-bla-bla'. The recording quality of the early Beatles albums is just fine. On a good kit, the presence is right down freaky (especially if you listen to the high definition masters).
Stratmangler
11-11-2010, 19:58
See, I could never understand this argument. Maybe it's because I detest listening to music through headphones. I have no problem whatsoever enjoying those early stereo mixes. And to my ears, they sound infinitely better than the mono mixes. For one, the sonic details are clearer, and also the visceral component is more present. Mono mixes, say what you will, just sound wimpy compared to the stereo mixes.
Also, these early tapes contain stunning presence and quality. I'm not buying into the 'the recording quality at that time was just not on par with bla-bla-bla'. The recording quality of the early Beatles albums is just fine. On a good kit, the presence is right down freaky (especially if you listen to the high definition masters).
The fact is that the mono mixes are what the band wanted us to hear.
They always attended and participated in the production mix downs for the mono releases.
The stereo mixes were always an afterthought, and usually had no involvement or input from the band, and this was so up until the last three albums, which were intended to be stereo productions from the outset.
If the mono mixes come across as wimpy just turn the volume up a touch more. There's a lot of power in them thar mono mixes.
One other point - the mono mixes are not the same as the stereo mixes; if your amp has a mono switch and you switch the output to mono the stereo mixes do not sound like the mono mixes.
They're two different beasts, and should be treated as such.
magiccarpetride
11-11-2010, 20:12
The fact is that the mono mixes are what the band wanted us to hear.
They always attended and participated in the production mix downs for the mono releases.
The stereo mixes were always an afterthought, and usually had no involvement or input from the band, and this was so up until the last three albums, which were intended to be stereo productions from the outset.
If the mono mixes come across as wimpy just turn the volume up a touch more. There's a lot of power in them thar mono mixes.
One other point - the mono mixes are not the same as the stereo mixes; if your amp has a mono switch and you switch the output to mono the stereo mixes do not sound like the mono mixes.
They're two different beasts, and should be treated as such.
Oh, I understand that. It's just that I'm not convinced that the mono mixes ought to be better just because it's the way the Beatles wanted them to sound.
The lads were phenomenal musicians and all around geniuses, but that's not to necessarily imply that they were also that good at mixing/mastering. An alternative theory would suggest that they were actually meddling with the pros in the post-production phase and messing things up. So, by them leaving the studio once the mono mixes were done, they have freed up the creative freedoms for the pro engineers to get down to business and produce a more decent version of the recorded tracks. Hence, I personally prefer, to a large degree, the stereo mixes.
How's that for history revisionism, ha?
As for cranking up the volume on the mono mixes, I've tried that, but no cigar. It's not about the volume. There's something else that makes those mono tracks sound anemic. Just compare mono version of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" with the stereo version -- night and day. On the stereo track, this song just springs to life.
Stratmangler
11-11-2010, 21:04
Oh, I understand that. It's just that I'm not convinced that the mono mixes ought to be better just because it's the way the Beatles wanted them to sound.
The lads were phenomenal musicians and all around geniuses, but that's not to necessarily imply that they were also that good at mixing/mastering. An alternative theory would suggest that they were actually meddling with the pros in the post-production phase and messing things up. So, by them leaving the studio once the mono mixes were done, they have freed up the creative freedoms for the pro engineers to get down to business and produce a more decent version of the recorded tracks. Hence, I personally prefer, to a large degree, the stereo mixes.
How's that for history revisionism, ha?
As for cranking up the volume on the mono mixes, I've tried that, but no cigar. It's not about the volume. There's something else that makes those mono tracks sound anemic. Just compare mono version of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" with the stereo version -- night and day. On the stereo track, this song just springs to life.
Who said anything about The Beatles as producers ?
I said that they participated in the production - the two things are not neccessarily the same.
The participation tended to be more like "can we have it like this please George (Martin)"? or "can you maybe bring this up in the mix"?
As for preferring the stereo mixes, well that's your choice, and I disagree with you.
I do have a question for you.
What model magneplanar speakers did George Martin and The Beatles prefer to listen to when monitoring in the studio ?
Maybe you've fallen into the audiophile trap of wanting to hear more than is actually there in the recordings.
Maybe you need the colouration of a box speaker to get near to hearing the monos as they were meant to be heard.
magiccarpetride
11-11-2010, 21:51
Who said anything about The Beatles as producers ?
I said that they participated in the production - the two things are not neccessarily the same.
The participation tended to be more like "can we have it like this please George (Martin)"? or "can you maybe bring this up in the mix"?
As for preferring the stereo mixes, well that's your choice, and I disagree with you.
I do have a question for you.
What model magneplanar speakers did George Martin and The Beatles prefer to listen to when monitoring in the studio ?
Maybe you've fallen into the audiophile trap of wanting to hear more than is actually there in the recordings.
Maybe you need the colouration of a box speaker to get near to hearing the monos as they were meant to be heard.
The Beatles feeding their requests to George Martin -- therein may lie the trouble. "Can we bring this up in the mix?" -- they were talking as musicians, not as sound engineers. They may have not been able to make the right judgment calls on these matters. It takes a specially trained pair of ears to know how to properly edit the tracks and mix them down, and then master them.
Besides, at that time the Beatles have intended for their music to be heard on crappy transistor radios and low-fi gramophones that were the household norm of that day. In your analogy, the best way to listen to the mono mixes would be to acquire one such vintage crap system, and fire it up. Then, and only then, the magic will happen!
You may be correct -- my Maggies are extremely neutral, no coloration that I can hear, so maybe that's why the mono mixes sound so lifeless to me.
If the same happens with the mono boxset as did with the stereo boxset i'll be pissed off.
What happened? Did I miss something?
With the stereo box set, they released a high Rez Apple usb with the stereo albums in 24bit, two months after the stereo CD's went on sale.
If they were to now release a 24bit mono high rez it would be another expensive thing for the Beatles fans to buy.
With the stereo box set, they released a high Rez Apple usb with the stereo albums in 24bit, two months after the stereo CD's went on sale.
If they were to now release a 24bit mono high rez it would be another expensive thing for the Beatles fans to buy.
Ah, yes, I see. With you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.