Riffster Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well, they came out a couple of weeks ago. I always wanted the vinyl version of the remasters but... They used the digital source of the remastered CDs to make a record master and press them using that. I am no expert but essentially that is listening to a CD on vinyl format. Not an analog source. I am sure they sound great but I rather listen to the CDs I already have and the few vinyls I have from back in the day. Looks like I will be saving the $320. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingarmadillo Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well, they came out a couple of weeks ago. I always wanted the vinyl version of the remasters but... They used the digital source of the remastered CDs to make a record master and press them using that. I am no expert but essentially that is listening to a CD on vinyl format. Not an analog source. I am sure they sound great but I rather listen to the CDs I already have and the few vinyls I have from back in the day. Looks like I will be saving the $320. I'll let you know how they are - I bought them when they came out but haven't played them yet. I think they were mastered from the 24 bit masters that were released as the Green Apple (USB drive) in FLAC format. The the CD releases are only 16 bit. I have all three (vinyls, CD's and FLAC). However, I also have an original MFSL vinyl set from 1982 (played once when it was transcribed to open reel Dolby tapes) and that will be the definitive comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacamartin Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I'll let you know how they are - I bought them when they came out but haven't played them yet. I think they were mastered from the 24 bit masters that were released as the Green Apple (USB drive) in FLAC format. The the CD releases are only 16 bit. I have all three (vinyls, CD's and FLAC). However, I also have an original MFSL vinyl set from 1982 (played once when it was transcribed to open reel Dolby tapes) and that will be the definitive comparison. D efinetly want to hear your thoughts on this....J.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Oh yea, I guess I did not catch the 16bit limiation on Cds vs the 24 bit. The reviews on Amazon are very mixed, it may have something to do with the quality control of the company that did the pressings apparently. The reason I started this thread is that I saw a bunch of these records for sale at the used record store, some people already ditched them. I thought that was odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well, they came out a couple of weeks ago. I always wanted the vinyl version of the remasters but... They used the digital source of the remastered CDs to make a record master and press them using that. I am no expert but essentially that is listening to a CD on vinyl format. Not an analog source. I am sure they sound great but I rather listen to the CDs I already have and the few vinyls I have from back in the day. Looks like I will be saving the $320. I have two issues with these reissues and you nailed issue number one with this post: why are they pressing vinyl from digital masters when you could pull it from the original analog masters? Makes little sense because your target audience with these pressings is the vinyl consumer. Issue number two is that these are stereo mixes. All Beatles albums up through Sgt. Pepper's were mixed and mastered *mono*. That is how they were intended to be listened to. Go read Geoff Emerick's book. He lays it out. Even with issue number one I might pick up Revolver or Rubber Soul when they come out in mono. Anyone know if they went all out with the album art work? Gate fold Sgt. Pepper's and does the White Album include the head shot photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I have two issues with these reissues and you nailed issue number one with this post: why are they pressing vinyl from digital masters when you could pull it from the original analog masters? Makes little sense because your target audience with these pressings is the vinyl consumer. Issue number two is that these are stereo mixes. All Beatles albums up through Sgt. Pepper's were mixed and mastered *mono*. That is how they were intended to be listened to. Go read Geoff Emerick's book. He lays it out. Even with issue number one I might pick up Revolver or Rubber Soul when they come out in mono. Anyone know if they went all out with the album art work? Gate fold Sgt. Pepper's and does the White Album include the head shot photos? I have an issue of Guitar World from last year that tells about the recording of each Beatles studio album (from Please Please Me through Let It Be). I learned a lot, needless to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 For one thing, a record turntable is usually going to be a better playback than a CD player, so getting vinyl is an advantage regardless of how it is mastered. Even if ultimately a full analog master would be the best, it doesn't mean that a digital remaster can't still be an improvement on something. And lastly, there is a BIG difference between 24 bit and 16 bit, mostly in the amount of info available. And THAT is one of the main reasons digital fails to meet the quality of analog...it simply doesn't have the capacity to store all the info and play it back. Lastly lastly, bits are not just bits. Just because something is digital, it doesn't mean that playing it back on a CD player will preserve all the content purely. There are all kinds of quality levels of CD players. And basically, usually it is the record player that is higher quality for a given dollar amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Even with issue number one I might pick up Revolver or Rubber Soul when they come out in mono. Anyone know if they went all out with the album art work? Gate fold Sgt. Pepper's and does the White Album include the head shot photos? My understanding based on reading Amazon reviews is that the packaging/artwork is very robust. I have an issue of Guitar World from last year that tells about the recording of each Beatles studio album (from Please Please Me through Let It Be). I learned a lot, needless to say. I kept that issue to re-read it at a later date, I'll read it again during my Christmas break. For one thing, a record turntable is usually going to be a better playback than a CD player, so getting vinyl is an advantage regardless of how it is mastered. Even if ultimately a full analog master would be the best, it doesn't mean that a digital remaster can't still be an improvement on something. And lastly, there is a BIG difference between 24 bit and 16 bit, mostly in the amount of info available. And THAT is one of the main reasons digital fails to meet the quality of analog...it simply doesn't have the capacity to store all the info and play it back. Lastly lastly, bits are not just bits. Just because something is digital, it doesn't mean that playing it back on a CD player will preserve all the content purely. There are all kinds of quality levels of CD players. And basically, usually it is the record player that is higher quality for a given dollar amount. I hear you, but a lot, lot of people have crappy turntables, people shelling out big bucks for a turntable are in the minority. Good CD players are much easier on the pocket. So, not being able to reproduce the full quality of the sound on recordings cane be a problem with either. I am 100% sure the recordings sound great with at 24-bit, is just that to me it does not quite justify the $320 price tag but that is a personal decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I hear you, but a lot, lot of people have crappy turntables, people shelling out big bucks for a turntable are in the minority. Good CD players are much easier on the pocket. So, not being able to reproduce the full quality of the sound on recordings cane be a problem with either. I am 100% sure the recordings sound great with at 24-bit, is just that to me it does not quite justify the $320 price tag but that is a personal decision. I hear you back. I guess you have to spend about 300-500 bucks before the turntable gets better than the CD player- and it is true a crappy CD player usually sounds better than a crappy out-of adjustment record player. Add 320 for the records, hell that's getting up to a grand pretty close. Who has that? I think really the best time a record player makes sense, is when you can spend about a fair amount on it and save money by buying records instead of CD's when they are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I have an issue of Guitar World from last year that tells about the recording of each Beatles studio album (from Please Please Me through Let It Be). I learned a lot, needless to say. I kept that issue to re-read it at a later date, I'll read it again during my Christmas break. If you cats dig that, do yourselves a favor and read the Geoff Emerick book. A lot of great studio stories that gives you insight into the genius that was the Beatles. My only complaint is the heavy bias Emerick has for Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sellen Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 bought "highway to hell" remastered on vinyl. My old "highway to hell" with scratches and dust sounds better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinh Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I must admit that the art of cutting and pressing good vinly seems to be a dying one. I've bought a few new "audiophile" pressings of vinly I had from 30-40 years ago, and mostly found them disapointing compared to the somewhat worn and noisly original presssings. Part of this is because "original master tapes" were not really designed to last 40 years. it's a magnetic medium, and it gradually loses high end every time it's played, and also loses high ends and is subject to "print through" when the tape sits sandwiched betwen to other pieces of tape, as it sits on a reel. Sometimes a copy made from the "original master" may not be as good as a 20 year old digital copy of the same original master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNylon Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I has some rare Beatles vinyls back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.