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

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"

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.

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

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



In my opinion that box set is a ripoff. Collectibles go for more money. I am sure the 30k will be sold quickly.

This move defies comment. I'm reading this with my mouth wide open. I don't get it.

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.


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.

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!'

I wish I they would sell the old Beatles cartoons- loved them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Never mind.

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

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?

As a huge Beatles fan, I can comfortably say that the suits that run Apple Corps are a bunch of tools.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Lennon/McCartney are two of the 20th century's most famous composers/lyricists- you get over it.

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.

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".

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.

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

There have been a lot of random releases of random crap along the way

But the Special Effects looked soooo real!!!

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.

You mean the non-Anamorphic version?

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

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'...

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)

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