or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › The Beatles go digital with apples, but still not Apple's iTunes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Beatles go digital with apples, but still not Apple's iTunes - Page 2

post #41 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Well I think the major thing is they are still stuck with this idea that they want people to buy the whole damn thing rather than just a few songs or even a CD or two. Eventually they'll milk it out to the point where they realize that iTunes isn't going to cannibalize their idiotic addiction to selling $200+ sets and then they are going to realize that, holy crap, they could have made way, way, way more if they had just put the CDs out on iTunes at 1 month increments and allow people to download a track at a time at $1.29.

They are arguably worse than George Lucas IMO...

Who cares if the Beatles ever come to iTunes. Their empire is old and isn't the point of such progressive thinking as iTunes, Apple, etc. Keep these stubborn old fossils out of the new way...they made their money... Out with the old, in with the new!!!!!

BTW, Beatles Rock Band? How "uncool"
post #42 of 89
What a ripoff. I paid less than $170 for my Beatles Stereo Box Set from Amazon. Even now you can get it for $100 less than this USB drive, and the box set comes with its own backup discs.
post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Factcheck: 256 kbps AAC is indistinguishable from lossless to the human ear.

Those are number facts, nothing more. Music is so much more than just sampling rates.
Smoothness vs harshness, etc.- too much to get into.
post #44 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gzaleski View Post

BTW, Beatles Rock Band? How "uncool"

Its very cool. Multiple vocals can be used for the first time in Rock Band.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Galley View Post

What a ripoff. I paid less than $170 for my Beatles Stereo Box Set from Amazon. Even now you can get it for $100 less than this USB drive, and the box set comes with its own backup discs.

In my opinion that box set is a ripoff. Collectibles go for more money. I am sure the 30k will be sold quickly.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #45 of 89
This move defies comment. I'm reading this with my mouth wide open. I don't get it.
post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Endless? I thought the Beatles didn't have a rerelease since the mid-80's and from what I understand, the new version does a very good job of restoring the music with technology that wasn't available in the 80's. Waiting 25 years to release a new version doesn't strike me as "endless re-releases", there even were a lot of fans begging for a restoration. Hard to see where the comparison is valid here against someone else that might have done different packaging every five years.

Before buying the remasters, I had read that the new remasters were like taking a wool blanket off your speakers, which turned out to be a great analogy. I bought Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Road as soon as they were released and after going home and comparing the 80s CD masters with the new CD remasters, I immediately went out and rounded out my collection.

Yes, there are endless releases (and remixes, which I absolutely hate) of lots of older material. But this was enough of an update that I re-bought all the last 8 CDs (counting Past Masters, for the singles) that for the most part I already owned in order to get the updated versions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

who cares? iphones have better music recording apps than what the Beatles used in the studio back in those days

And yet they overcame the limitations of the four track analog tape machine to put out Sgt. Peppers in 1967, the production values of which have stood the test of time. Go figure.

Speaking as a musician, if technology were all that went into a recording you'd have thought that Pro Tools HD would've brought us thousands of new classic albums but it hasn't happened that way. Great recording tools don't guarantee great music recordings, in many cases today the abuse of dynamic range means you get exactly the opposite.

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #47 of 89
Paul McCartney and John Lennon were in the same band at onetime?

No way....Next you will try to tell me, 'horses sleep standing up!'
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You have no idea how disturbing I find it that you like the Beatles enough to buy the mono box set.

I wish I they would sell the old Beatles cartoons- loved them.
post #49 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

The Anthology doesn't count as a shameless money grab? George added stuff, released stuff that hadn't been seen before and it's a shameless money grab but the Beatles do the same thing and since it's music they get a free pass? They release this stuff because they know the fans will buy it, and they do. I don't suppose there's anything wrong with that but let's call a spade a spade here.

I didn't know about that release, but what does that bring it down to, a new edition every 12 1/2 years? Besides, do you even know if it's the same fans for Lucas and Beatles? They're both popular phenomenons, but I don't know if they're a lot of overlap to suggest that the people complaining about one are just letting the other slide.
post #50 of 89
A big wooop-t-dooo ... I could care less, never liked the overrated Beatles anyway.

It's too bad they are so hung up with doing business with iTunes ... but there is zero affect on me, so whatever.
post #51 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I didn't know about that release, but what does that bring it down to, a new edition every 12 1/2 years? Besides, do you even know if it's the same fans for Lucas and Beatles? They're both popular phenomenons, but I don't know if they're a lot of overlap to suggest that the people complaining about one are just letting the other slide.

I didn't mean to imply any overlap just that both franchises know that people are going to buy their stuff - even if it's just multiple recordings of interviews (http://www.jpgr.co.uk/i_beatleslp_date.html) or the Special Edition Box Set w/ Ep I preview.

From the link it looks like a lot more than releasing stuff every 12 1/2 years - they put out a ton of random crap capitalizing on the brand name - same with Star Wars. I'm not really saying there's anything wrong with that I suppose but I think the remaining Beatles and George belong in the same category when talking about milking stuff.
post #52 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Those are number facts, nothing more. Music is so much more than just sampling rates.
Smoothness vs harshness, etc.- too much to get into.

Sound is nothing more than electrical interpretation of the vibratations of your eardrum - if the way your eardrum vibrates listening to 256k AAC is exactly the same as lossless there is, in fact, no discernible difference. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_humans_hear_sound

And no, Monster HDMI cables aren't worth it.
post #53 of 89
Never mind.
post #54 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Sound is nothing more than electrical interpretation of the vibratations of your eardrum - if the way your eardrum vibrates listening to 256k AAC is exactly the same as lossless there is, in fact, no discernible difference. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_humans_hear_sound

And no, Monster HDMI cables aren't worth it.

Right - your 256k AAC is the best music format of its kind. You keep believing it.
post #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Right - your 256k AAC is the best music format of its kind. You keep believing it.

Science is a b!tch isn't it
post #56 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Science is a b!tch isn't it

No, not really- And digital trumps analog too - right? Wrong. Why do you think vinyl has made a comeback? A soundwave sampled by numbers never trumps an actual sound. Didn't you know that?
post #57 of 89
As a huge Beatles fan, I can comfortably say that the suits that run Apple Corps are a bunch of tools.
post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No, not really- And digital trumps analog too - right? Wrong. Why do you think vinyl has made a comeback? A soundwave sampled by numbers never trumps an actual sound. Didn't you know that?

That's not the argument - the argument is that a sound wave sampled digitally at such a high rate that it's indistinguishable to the human ear is, in fact, indistinguishable.

I think it's due to no small part that it's hard to find a POS turntable so you're going to be forced to buy something that's pretty damn good at what it does compared to something like, say, an iPod that has been shown time and again to be lacking in the reproduction of music clarity.

Go buy a top of the line CD player deck (hundreds of dollars, if not more) and plug it into the same speakers as your vinyl and tell me what you hear - don't compare vinyl to an iPod or any computer that has anything short of a kick @ss audio card.

Is vinyl a lot better than an iPod? Well duh but, again, that's not the argument...

EDIT: Also, I NEVER said it trumps. I said it's indistinguishable when sampled at a high enough rate and hooked up to a proper system. It's impossible to trump the analog sound wave, I'm saying hooked up to the right equipment they are equal - HUGE difference.
post #59 of 89
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Factcheck: 256 kbps AAC is indistinguishable from lossless to the human ear.

Quote:
Those are number facts, nothing more. Music is so much more than just sampling rates.
Smoothness vs harshness, etc.- too much to get into.

Yes it is, but AAC is a very high-quality encoding algorithm and how much AAC negatively affects the music can be easily heard by playing the AAC version out of phase with the original version (in sync, obviously). What you will hear is the difference between them. And what you will hear most of the time is silence, meaning there is no difference. Every once in a while, you'll hear a short "sss" sound which is a difference, albeit a very minor one.

Having said that, I still always transfer my CDs in lossless format. Takes up a lot more room, but I do want the best quality I can achieve on the player, even if the only thing I use it for is listening on the train or while bike riding.

Smoothness vs harshness is not an encoding argument. It's an analog vs. digital argument and it's a myth. It was only true in the early days of CD because the early digital to audio converters were of very poor quality and weren't even a full 16 bit - they were usually 12 bit. It was also an issue because mastering engineers at the time were still mastering as if the recordings were going to be on vinyl. But I guarantee you in a blind A-B test, that you won't be able to tell the difference between a vinyl recording and a CD-R of that rercording and possibly (but not definitely) an AAC encoded 256 kbs or higher MP3. Most of the "smoothness" that people associate with analog vinyl is actually surface noise masking high frequencies in the recording. The "warmth" we associate with analog recordings is actually distortion: it's odd-harmonic distortion that generates square shaped waves. It just so happens we happen to like the sound of square waves (like a fuzz guitar). But it's still distortion.

All of these so-called audiophiles paying $25 to buy new vinyl are a big joke because most of that vinyl is made from a digital (not analog) master. I was at the Audio Engineering Society convention a few weeks back and one of the most legendary mastering engineers (who shall go nameless here) said he sold his lathe when the recording industry executives refused to pay for separate vinyl masters, insisting that the CD master be used to cut the vinyl.
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No, not really- And digital trumps analog too - right? Wrong. Why do you think vinyl has made a comeback? A soundwave sampled by numbers never trumps an actual sound. Didn't you know that?

Sorry, but mathematical proofs trump everything. The Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem states that a sound wave sampled by numbers wont 'trump' the original analog waveform, but it can reproduce it perfectly under the right conditions.

I listen to my original 80's era complete box set from my ipod in 224 kbps aac on a high end system, because there is no audible difference when compared to the original CD's, and it is a lot more convenient.
post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Actually, I thnk it's a YES to the first item. And really, you're ok with paying a premium for REPRODUCTIONS of the original sleeve?

Like I said, arguably worse than George Lucas (I like both the Beatles and Star Wars but the endless money grab of both is just embarassing)

I would maintain that it's just the opposite: because of the legalities and beauracracy at Apple Records, they have left tons of money on the table because they have not done a money grab by releasing product through the years.

If you go to various postings boards about the Beatles or the remasters, you'll see that fans want all manner of product: remixes, 5.1 remixes, Blu-ray versions, the compilation albums (Red/Blue/Love Songs/Move Songs) and Anthology remastered, etc. Help was released on DVD only recently (and it is overpriced) and you can't get Yellow Submarine on DVD.

All the Beatles have done in the last 20 years is finally remaster the original albums in mono and stereo, release a non-Phil Spector version of Let It Be, release Love and the Yellow Submarine songbook and Anthology. That's not really very much.

However, where I will agree with you is that the boxed sets, especially the mono boxed set, are absurdly overpriced and they should have put the mono and the stereo on the same CD in any case. The individual stereo albums are now on sale for $11 each and I think that's pretty reasonable. The $50 increment for the USB version doesn't seem completely unreasonable, depending upon how big that USB key really is.

Other acts, somewhat because they've shifted from label to label, have remastered their catalog endless times. The Stones come to mind and the Jimi Hendrix catalog has been remastered at least three times and is now going to be remastered again with the move to another label (BMG, I think.) Now that is a money grab.

As for Lucas, you can love or hate the changes he made to the three original Star Wars films, but he's not the only director to change or recut his films. The fact is, you don't have to buy them. If he really wanted a quick buck, he'd release them again on Blu-ray in various editions over time, but so far, that hasn't happened.
post #62 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

compared to something like, say, an iPod that has been shown time and again to be lacking in the reproduction of music clarity.

Go buy a top of the line CD player deck (hundreds of dollars, if not more) and plug it into the same speakers as your

iPod

There is long running internet myth that iPods produce inferior sound quality. It stems, I believe, from the crap earbuds Apple sold with them. An example of Apple paying in the long run for skimping on quality in favour of profit.

I have compared my iPod (line out via dock) to my expensive CD player and the two are indistinguishable in terms of audio quality.
post #63 of 89
There milking the catalog as much as they can. I don't expect to see a real digital release until after the new CDs stop selling.
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Lucas is much worse- you can't even get the original Star Wars anymore. He's altered it so much then released it but letterboxed it and not anamoorphic.

You've never been able to get the original Star Wars. After the first successful run in early 1976 Lucas edited out a few bits before it made its second appearance in theatres that summer. By the time it finally made it to VHS years later more small changes had been incorporated. Then came the "special editions" and pretty much all historical value was gone.

By the time the Beatles make it to iTunes another whole generation will have been born. Maybe they'll buy the songs. Everyone alive today either has them or doesn't care.
post #65 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Sorry, but mathematical proofs trump everything. The Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem states that a sound wave sampled by numbers wont 'trump' the original analog waveform, but it can reproduce it perfectly under the right conditions.

I listen to my original 80's era complete box set from my ipod in 224 kbps aac on a high end system, because there is no audible difference when compared to the original CD's, and it is a lot more convenient.

IMO, what's getting lost in the AAC/MP3 vs. analog discussion is that the original CD masters from the 80's (which I've had on CD since the 80's) were crap compared to the remasters.

You're free to enjoy whatever music you want in whatever format you want, but if you are still listening to the 80's era masters with a PMP as your D-A converter, you are missing a lot. Maybe that's why you can't tell the difference?

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #66 of 89
re re-mastering: with classical music there are any number of versions of the great works available, because each individual conductor brings his own interpretation to the score. A lot of the great albums of the 60s and later were rushed out by the labels, intent solely on getting 'product' into the stores, with no artistic consideration given. So I don't see why musicians shouldn't return to their old work and produce something closer to their original artistic vision. Also, musicians often didn't have any control on what was released - they just laid down the tracks in the studio, then a producer (and record company execs) rendered it to make it 'more commercial'. I know McCartney was furious with what Spector did to 'Long and Winding Road', and i hadn't realised what a truly great song 'Across the Universe' was until I heard the de-Spectorised version on Let it Be - Naked.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #67 of 89
Seriously.. who cares about The Beatles? get over it and move on. Get new music!
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I would maintain that it's just the opposite: because of the legalities and beauracracy at Apple Records, they have left tons of money on the table because they have not done a money grab by releasing product through the years.

If you go to various postings boards about the Beatles or the remasters, you'll see that fans want all manner of product: remixes, 5.1 remixes, Blu-ray versions, the compilation albums (Red/Blue/Love Songs/Move Songs) and Anthology remastered, etc. Help was released on DVD only recently (and it is overpriced) and you can't get Yellow Submarine on DVD.

All the Beatles have done in the last 20 years is finally remaster the original albums in mono and stereo, release a non-Phil Spector version of Let It Be, release Love and the Yellow Submarine songbook and Anthology. That's not really very much.

However, where I will agree with you is that the boxed sets, especially the mono boxed set, are absurdly overpriced and they should have put the mono and the stereo on the same CD in any case. The individual stereo albums are now on sale for $11 each and I think that's pretty reasonable. The $50 increment for the USB version doesn't seem completely unreasonable, depending upon how big that USB key really is.

Other acts, somewhat because they've shifted from label to label, have remastered their catalog endless times. The Stones come to mind and the Jimi Hendrix catalog has been remastered at least three times and is now going to be remastered again with the move to another label (BMG, I think.) Now that is a money grab.

As for Lucas, you can love or hate the changes he made to the three original Star Wars films, but he's not the only director to change or recut his films. The fact is, you don't have to buy them. If he really wanted a quick buck, he'd release them again on Blu-ray in various editions over time, but so far, that hasn't happened.

Paying an average of $20 for a limited edition Mono disc is not overpriced much.
George Lucas is well know for milking his products and even damaging their legacy with godawful prequels.
At least the Beatles have painstakingly reissued very rarely. I have a copy of Yellow Submarine on DVD and Handbraked it to my iPhone.
post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektroalien View Post

Seriously.. who cares about The Beatles? get over it and move on. Get new music!

Lennon/McCartney are two of the 20th century's most famous composers/lyricists- you get over it.
post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

iPod

There is long running internet myth that iPods produce inferior sound quality. It stems, I believe, from the crap earbuds Apple sold with them. An example of Apple paying in the long run for skimping on quality in favour of profit.

I have compared my iPod (line out via dock) to my expensive CD player and the two are indistinguishable in terms of audio quality.

Yes they are- that's precisely why they don't want their music to be sold by inferior standards. The digital to analogue converters in an iPod are vastly inferior to those found in any CD deck.
They are in fact doing the exact opposite of milking their catalogue. They are protecting it.
post #71 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

You've never been able to get the original Star Wars. After the first successful run in early 1976 Lucas edited out a few bits before it made its second appearance in theatres that summer. By the time it finally made it to VHS years later more small changes had been incorporated. Then came the "special editions" and pretty much all historical value was gone.

George Lucas' primary shortcoming is that he's never been able to leave well enough alone. But because he's the producer, director, screenwriter, etc. (and chairman of Lucasfilm, fergawdzsakes) there is nobody with enough clout to tell him his tinkering causes more eventual harm than good.

The Star Wars episodes I, II and III are prime examples of this. Cinematography students would do well to study what he did wrong and how it negative impacted those films. They could name the class "Lucasizing - How to Ruin Your Movie".

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I have the original Star Wars on VHS and the original Beatles albums on vinyl bought at the time they were released and I can tell you that you probably wouldn't want them. They are crap quality. The movies are full of digital artefacts and bad puppets and the albums are mono and have a very flat sound even if you ignore 40 plus years of scratches and crud.

Sometimes remastering is a good thing.

here here! i saw a side by side comparison of the changes lucas did and man i liked it. the only cringe moment for me was the jedi song in episode 6 but that was always the kiddiest star wars so he just made it kiddier.

and the beatles on vinyl. unless you have vinyl in mint condition and play it on a special deck with a special needle it doesnt sound as good as CD. And yes hard-drives are now the primary recording source for mastering - no more reel to reel recordings.
post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I would maintain that it's just the opposite: because of the legalities and beauracracy at Apple Records, they have left tons of money on the table because they have not done a money grab by releasing product through the years.

If you go to various postings boards about the Beatles or the remasters, you'll see that fans want all manner of product: remixes, 5.1 remixes, Blu-ray versions, the compilation albums (Red/Blue/Love Songs/Move Songs) and Anthology remastered, etc. Help was released on DVD only recently (and it is overpriced) and you can't get Yellow Submarine on DVD.

All the Beatles have done in the last 20 years is finally remaster the original albums in mono and stereo, release a non-Phil Spector version of Let It Be, release Love and the Yellow Submarine songbook and Anthology. That's not really very much.

http://www.jpgr.co.uk/i_beatleslp_date.html

There have been a lot of random releases of random crap along the way
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

George Lucas' primary shortcoming is that he's never been able to leave well enough alone. But because he's the producer, director, screenwriter, etc. (and chairman of Lucasfilm, fergawdzsakes) there is nobody with enough clout to tell him his tinkering causes more eventual harm than good.

The Star Wars episodes I, II and III are prime examples of this. Cinematography students would do well to study what he did wrong and how it negative impacted those films. They could name the class "Lucasizing - How to Ruin Your Movie".

But the Special Effects looked soooo real!!!
post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektroalien View Post

Seriously.. who cares about The Beatles? get over it and move on. Get new music!

I was a huge Beatles fan when in high school, while they were still together and recording, but over the years I've lost interest and now, to me, most of the lyrics are sort of boring and the trombones, violins and harpsichords are just so last century . There are a few decent songs, but for the most part it gets filed under been there done that. In fact almost all of the psychedelic era music is like a 'bad trip'. All the groups I liked back then - Doors, Zeppelin, Stones, Jefferson Airplane, etc., are all just crap. Now I listen to RP with their iPhone app.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Original Star Wars or nothing.

The newer, CGI-laden blue-tinted versions are horrible.

I've got an original version on DVD.

You mean the non-Anamorphic version?
post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

You're free to enjoy whatever music you want in whatever format you want, but if you are still listening to the 80's era masters with a PMP as your D-A converter, you are missing a lot. Maybe that's why you can't tell the difference?

No, the lack of a difference is a result of there not being one.

Quote:
The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD playersironic, considering that most of the time it will be used to play MP3 and AAC files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance. But if you're willing to trade off maximum playing time against the ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an excellent job of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio engineering from an unexpected source.John Atkinson
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No, not really- And digital trumps analog too - right? Wrong. Why do you think vinyl has made a comeback? A soundwave sampled by numbers never trumps an actual sound. Didn't you know that?

Wrong. Vinyl's comeback is a niche lifestyle thing to give DJs something to do with their hands.

As a format it's sonically inferior to CD and AAC (unless we get into ridiculously small bitrates). The frequency response of vinyl is a lot narrower, never mind the inherent problems with a rather janky mechanism dragging metal across plastic. It's only nostalgia that people keep bringing it up. The art was bigger and cooler... that's about it.

iPod's converters better than CDs? Well no. Unless we're talking fantastical, nonsense, b@llsh@t laden "audiophile" specs. Rather than debunk the whole hornets nest of bad information and superstition that is from that side - let's sum up these folks... they aren't professionals at recording music, designing playback system, and there's is no standardized set of criteria to measure their claims. Rule of thumb - never trust people who label themselves "philes" In this case they are only looking to inflate their status as listeners - which is a pretty basic human ability. Most audio pros can't tell the difference between AAC and 16 bit/44.1 lossless formats.
Elitist dweebs with too much time & money and not enough ears claim otherwise, they are light on proof and cover it with lots of meaningless buzz words like jitter.

There's a lot of bad information out there and there's a whole industry aimed at selling specs to consumers. I see a lot of this attitude that Apple's iPod earbuds are crap... compared to what? Sonically speaking, all headphones are crap, none of them can produce a full frequency range so they rely on psycho-acoustic methods to try and get a fuller spectrum. The worst speaker sets at Best Buy, blow away all headphones.

As for The Beatles... they remastered to change 2 things... increase the level of higher and lower frequencies. The vinyl wasn't capable of delivering the "bass" that has become a big feature of modern music (for better or worse) and to increase the higher frequencies for aging fans whose hearing is shot from natural rolloff. Their recordings were always muddy and messy... what do you expect? It was 4 hippies going apesh@t in a studio, while a team of about 15 people and equipment barely up to the job, cleaning up & polished their musings. It was never pristine, not even close. At lot better recordings came out of EMI Studios in the same era.

As for George Lucas, he can ruin his movies all he wants. He's happy with his art, it's just you that aren't. Personally I think the edits on the original trilogy were hit and miss, the restoration work was astounding, some of the additions seemed like a technology test. I can forgive Jabba and Greedo, but 'Jedi Rocks'...
post #79 of 89
Mac's comeback is the same as Vinyl's marketshare. They are both niche and overpriced products with their own fans. While they both have increased their marketshare, in the grand scheme of things they are still a rounding error compared to the dominant product

In both cases, they are also mostly inferior to the dominant product. Vinyl has the artwork and cool factor but in in terms of sound it is inferior to any recording digital (assuming those digital recordings have not been compressed to sound loud) and the gear costs more. Mac also has the design and artwork but in terms of hardware it is behind PCs while costing double and not existent in any serious corporation (unless you have employees who care more about tight shirts and starbucks latte than getting work done)
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Factcheck: 256 kbps AAC is indistinguishable from lossless to the human ear.

Fact check back atcha: Maybe a CD and a 256kbps AAC rip are indistinguishable to *your* ear, but certainly not to everyone's ears. E.g.:
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html

Fact check #2: "Lossless" at what bit depth and sampling frequency? 22.05kHz 8-bit? 96kHz 24-bit? E.g.:
http://www.examiner.com/x-373-SF-Cla...wnloaded-audio
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › The Beatles go digital with apples, but still not Apple's iTunes