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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 players?ironic, 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
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'...
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)
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
Over 8% of the US computer market is a "rounding error?" Don't believe everything that Ballmer says.
Comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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
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!!!
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.
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?
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.
The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players?ironic, 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
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"
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'...
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)
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
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
Over 8% of the US computer market is a "rounding error?" Don't believe everything that Ballmer says.
http://www.cultofmac.com/report-mac-...-quarter/18733
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...ers/1248218543
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...rket-share.ars