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.
It?s very cool. Multiple vocals can be used for the first time in Rock Band.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galley
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
BTW, Beatles Rock Band? How "uncool"
It?s very cool. Multiple vocals can be used for the first time in Rock Band.
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.
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.
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.
No way....Next you will try to tell me, 'horses sleep standing up!'
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Right - your 256k AAC is the best music format of its kind. You keep believing it.
Science is a b!tch isn't 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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
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.
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.
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.