The Beatles entire catalog is on Apple Records. This has existed long before Apple Computer. In fact there was a big trademark dispute shortly after Apple Computer Started getting big. For more history: [en.wikipedia.org]#thebeatlesappleusbstick
Danny, is this basically the "digital" stick version of what the Mono and Stereo boxset collections are? I just purchased both the Mono and Stereo sets off Amazon for a hefty $500 and I just saw the Miles Davis collection on Uncrate for $330 ( [www.uncrate.com] ). These labels need to chill for a little. I can't keep spending cash like this haha. #thebeatlesappleusbstick
@Lizard_King: Yeah it's odd. Over the past 2 years, I've had a few audio related purchases. Mostly vinyl collections and limited releases from Portishead and the like. But this is becoming insane to the point where I've spent over $1000 in less than 3 months. #thebeatlesappleusbstick
@OMG! Ponies!: Yes! Thank you for posting this. I don't understand the big deal -- isn't it better to buy nice lossless CDs, rip them at whatever bit rate you want, and then permanently tuck them away as backup?
I bought the stereo boxed set. Took maybe an hour to rip. And in a few years when we all have 32 TB music players that can hold all the uncompressed music in the world, I'll still have pristine copies of the stuff at my disposal. #thebeatlesappleusbstick
@abadomaX: From what I can tell, there is an exception for temporary, erasable copies. Because otherwise you couldn't sell (or even own) mp3 players of any kind in Europe as it necessarily requires the duplication of copyrighted material to function. #thebeatlesappleusbstick
@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 think now the story is why SKY News removed a published story from its website. Does Apple have enough clout to get SKY News, owned by News Corp., to remove a story?
And I don't think it was some little mistake because there really is no way to accidentally report that John Lennon's widow said that the Beatles catalog will be available for download on iTunes.
Still amazed that so many were expecting Beatles given the Rolling Stones allusion, regardless of the other 9/9/9 Beatles releases. Why would Apple go out of it's way to offend both the alpha and the omega of '60s music with one event?
11/04/09
The Beatles entire catalog is on Apple Records. This has existed long before Apple Computer. In fact there was a big trademark dispute shortly after Apple Computer Started getting big. For more history: [en.wikipedia.org] #thebeatlesappleusbstick
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
I think this is just stereo mixes - you still MUST get the mono CDs if you purchase this. #thebeatlesappleusbstick
11/04/09
11/04/09
Rip the CD #thebeatlesappleusbstick
11/04/09
11/04/09
I bought the stereo boxed set. Took maybe an hour to rip. And in a few years when we all have 32 TB music players that can hold all the uncompressed music in the world, I'll still have pristine copies of the stuff at my disposal. #thebeatlesappleusbstick
11/04/09
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
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
09/08/09
And I don't think it was some little mistake because there really is no way to accidentally report that John Lennon's widow said that the Beatles catalog will be available for download on iTunes.
09/08/09
09/08/09