I'm trying to figure out how you mount it. Does it hang from above the center of the room like a light fixture? Stick a light bulb in the thing and you have something really snazy. #eopsi24r3portable
@pexy: I heard that Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles catalog back in the 90's. Paul got shut out by one of his biggest fans. When Apple corps finally lost the rights to the music, Michael Jackson stepped in with the winning bid to own them.
The new stereo CDs are just remastered, not remixed. NY Times says they sound better than the 1987 stereo CDs because EMI used better A-D converters and took more time (four years?!).
Reading the beyond-obsessive Beatles fans on Amazon forums, some maintain that the bestest knobs-at-11 sound would be to make new stereo mixes of the albums. This sounds like sacrilege, but George and Giles Martin have done it for the Yellow Submarine soundtrack, One album, and Love album. EMI could even consider 5.1 surround mixes on Blu-ray.
That the Beatles cared more about the mono mixes than the stereo ones isn't surprising. It's similar to the way artists care about stereo mixes these days and don't spend much time on the surround mix, and why early 5.1 sounds as goofy and exaggerated as early stereo.
But the world is in stereo. We have two ears. Once engineers realized the second speaker wasn't just where you put the tambourine, creating stereo soundfields made reproduced music come alive.
The mono mixes may be historically important, but I'm betting the stereo remixes will sound way better.
@frigg: As I wrote elsewhere, the stereo CDs haven't been remixed, just remastered. But there have been Beatles remixes on recent compilations and soundtracks, to general approval.
I have been waiting for Mono CDs to come to the States for a long time. I waited too long to preorder it seems, B&N was not able to fulfill my order that I placed August 2nd. I'll have to tough it out in Retail.
If I can't purchase it from a store, I will have NO problem with downloading flac rips.
Why go through all that trouble and then not release it on DVD-A or SACD? Then it might actually be worth the hundreds of $$ they're asking. Otherwise, they offer no reason for me to not just download it in FLAC.
@Chris Churchill: Easy answer: stereo SACD offers absolutely no benefit over CD. There was a very nice study conducted that showed that no "golden-eared" listeners could tell the difference between an SACD source, and the same SACD source passed through a 16-bit/44.1kHz A/D-D/A.
What matters on SACD is the attention to detail and quality of the masters, which are typically much more carefully done. But, once that careful mastering has been performed, a standard CD can reproduce it indistinguishably.
Of course, if you meant surround, then that's a different story, but I would question the benefit of introducing surround to this particular set of recordings.
@MikeK:
It's easy to generate all sorts of results in studies, even nice ones.
My experience is that people can distinguish between 16 and 24 bit resolution, although the difference is less noticeable between 44.1 and 96 kHz. And of course, a better converter at a lower resolution can sound better than a crappy converter at a higher resolution.
Somewhere upstairs, I pulled out of the attic some original copies of the White album, Abbey Road and so on that one of the previous owners of the house left behind. I haven't looked to see if they're mono or stereo.
Anyone know how to unwarp vinyl that's been left in an attic for a generation?
@OMG! Ponies!: That # isn't accurate, there are more than 10,000 being produced. If you REALLY want one, just be on the lookout for the next month or two.
@OMG! Ponies!: I'm actually excited to see what all the hubub is about the mono versions of the tracks. I'm planning on getting the remastered Sgt. Pepper's in stereo, but I'll see if I can "aquire" the mono one to see if it's really as good as they say.
@Matt0505: Here's hoping. I may have to go to a certain bay frequented by pirates to tide me over until my actual copies arrive. It's not like I'm not buying the remasters and mono versions.
I am LOVING these retro posts. Wish more tech sites did the same... love to see technologies that I would never have had the opportunity to see otherwise.
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
09/08/09
09/09/09
09/08/09
Reading the beyond-obsessive Beatles fans on Amazon forums, some maintain that the bestest knobs-at-11 sound would be to make new stereo mixes of the albums. This sounds like sacrilege, but George and Giles Martin have done it for the Yellow Submarine soundtrack, One album, and Love album. EMI could even consider 5.1 surround mixes on Blu-ray.
No doubt for some Beatles anniversary EMI will go for it. Meanwhile I bet fans will remix the Rock Band tracks as they did with Metallica. When people love songs this much, some will go to extreme lengths to get the "master tape" sound.
09/08/09
09/08/09
But the world is in stereo. We have two ears. Once engineers realized the second speaker wasn't just where you put the tambourine, creating stereo soundfields made reproduced music come alive.
The mono mixes may be historically important, but I'm betting the stereo remixes will sound way better.
09/08/09
09/09/09
09/08/09
If I can't purchase it from a store, I will have NO problem with downloading flac rips.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
What matters on SACD is the attention to detail and quality of the masters, which are typically much more carefully done. But, once that careful mastering has been performed, a standard CD can reproduce it indistinguishably.
Of course, if you meant surround, then that's a different story, but I would question the benefit of introducing surround to this particular set of recordings.
[theaudiocritic.com]
09/08/09
09/08/09
It's easy to generate all sorts of results in studies, even nice ones.
My experience is that people can distinguish between 16 and 24 bit resolution, although the difference is less noticeable between 44.1 and 96 kHz. And of course, a better converter at a lower resolution can sound better than a crappy converter at a higher resolution.
09/08/09
Anyone know how to unwarp vinyl that's been left in an attic for a generation?
09/08/09
Here are two links, in fact they work for all of your questions.
* [lmgtfy.com]
* [justfuckinggoogleit.com]
09/09/09
The snark is strong in this one.
That was actually an off-hand question because I didn't think it was possible. I fear the person who tried this technique the first.
09/09/09
Furutech will gladly sell you their DVF-1 Record Flattener for $1480.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
07/16/09
07/16/09