Beatles Vinyl Box...sorry. cut from 44.1 Khz digital files...

[Andre Marc]

And how would you know unless you heard the actual tapes?? Do you not think that EQ was applied during the latest remastering to digital?

See above post. Yes, there was EQ applied, but a very minor amount. How do I know? I have gigs of Beatle bootlegs consisting of tracking sessions, rough mixes,
alternates, etc. Some of it is mind numbing, like 28 versions of No Reply..but, cool none the less.

 

[Andre Marc]

His two statements don't reconcile with each other.

I have seen copies of the original mastering notes...they were quite a bit of squashing going on. Not for any malicious reason..it was for
technical limitations of the day.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I own two copies of the "blue box" EMI Parlaphone LPs. I consider them to be very special-at least they are to me. And I agree with Mike that both Revolver and Rubber Soul have good bass and highs with the nod going to Rubber Soul for the better/deeper bass between the two.

the key issue is the 'mono' pressings. much better than the stereo.

 

[mep]

See above post. Yes, there was EQ applied, but a very minor amount. How do I know? I have gigs of Beatle bootlegs consisting of tracking sessions, rough mixes,
alternates, etc. Some of it is mind numbing, like 28 versions of No Reply..but, cool none the less.

So you have "gigs" of Beatle bootlegs which were originally recorded in analog by who knows what provenance and sometime later were converted to digital and you are comparing the bass and highs from analog bootlegs converted to digital against pure analog EMI Parlaphone studio releases? Your ‘chain of evidence’ is so corrupted it would never be allowed in a court of law because you have no idea of the sources of your bootlegs and what jigger-pookey was done to them along the way to digital conversion.

 

[Andre Marc]

So you have "gigs" of Beatle bootlegs which were originally recorded in analog by who knows what provenance and sometime later were converted to digital and you are comparing the bass and highs from analog bootlegs converted to digital against pure analog EMI Parlaphone studio releases? Your ‘chain of evidence’ is so corrupted it would never be allowed in a court of law because you have no idea of the sources of your bootlegs and what jigger-pookey was done to them along the way to digital conversion.

Many of the boots I have were just the raw session reels direct to CD-R. Some very naughty engineers at Abbey Road must have
had a drug habit to support or something.

 

[Andre Marc]

So you have "gigs" of Beatle bootlegs which were originally recorded in analog by who knows what provenance and sometime later were converted to digital and you are comparing the bass and highs from analog bootlegs converted to digital against pure analog EMI Parlaphone studio releases? Your ‘chain of evidence’ is so corrupted it would never be allowed in a court of law because you have no idea of the sources of your bootlegs and what jigger-pookey was done to them along the way to digital conversion.

Is there way to upload an audio file in a post?

 

[mep]

Many of the boots I have were just the raw session reels direct to CD-R. Some very naughty engineers at Abbey Road must have
had a drug habit to support or something.

Maybe, maybe not. How do you really know what the truth is? Buts let's assume you really have a CD-R copy of the raw session reels. You now have analog converted to 16/44.1 that you are comparing against the original releases on LP except you don't own any right? So are we now comparing your memory of what some Beatle LPs used to sound like years ago on whatever system you had against bootleg copies of analog session reels coverted to digital.

 

[mep]

Is there way to upload an audio file in a post?

You can post your file(s) to youtube and provide a link to the files here.

 

[Andre Marc]

You can post your file(s) to youtube and provide a link to the files here.

YouTube wants me to convert my audio file to a video file, and the instructions are too damn involved. Oh well.

 

[Andre Marc]

Maybe, maybe not. How do you really know what the truth is? Buts let's assume you really have a CD-R copy of the raw session reels. You now have analog converted to 16/44.1 that you are comparing against the original releases on LP except you don't own any right? So are we now comparing your memory of what some Beatle LPs used to sound like years ago on whatever system you had against bootleg copies of analog session reels coverted to digital.

Let's put it this way. Many of the tracks on these boots have never been "mastered". Who cares about what sample rate. They reflect the overall gestalt of the session tapes.
You would be VERY surprised at how much bass is on some of these rough mixes and out takes.

Now..do they sound as good as ANY commercially released versions? No. I don't claim that at all.

 

[microstrip]

It would have been a lot better if this had broken a year from now, after 12 months of online enthusiasm over the superior musicality of the vinyl. Ah well. It was a great giggle last year or the year before when a bunch of folks suddenly "discovered" that their high-end, hi-res downloads were upsampled from redbook, having not noticed anything amiss prior to the story breaking.

I guess the audiophile internet can't be that much fun all the time.

Tim

Tim,

Sorry but I can not see anything great in this type of situations. The Beatles recordings are very processed and is just one the cases where the aim of the recording is to spread the artists intentions, not the live performances, and personal preference will dominate the choice of what we consider best. I can not understand how mistakes of people induced by misinformation in these conditions can make some one happy.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Before knowing this LP were from Digital "masters" I am interested to know what were some LP lovers impression of the release. I have too many times seen the following reaction, to not call it out.. Person X waxes poetic about a Vinyl release. Great sound, Immense Soundstage, Body and organic everything .. Person Y comes with the information that is was sourced from digital... Same Person X backpedals violently and now there is a chorus against the LP which previously was all great and Organic, they usually go like that : It is is OK "for a digital" but LP release from xxxx is indeed superior ...
I have been wishing for the improbable for a while : For Person Z an analog-lover to just say that he/she found the LP good in spite of its, now known, origins . A little bit of candor once in a while ...

Is it asking for too much ?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi

Before knowing this LP were from Digital "masters" I am interested to know what were some LP lovers impression of the release. I have too many times seen the following reaction, to not call it out.. Person X waxes poetic about a Vinyl release. Great sound, Immense Soundstage, Body and organic everything .. Person Y comes with the information that is was sourced from digital... Same Person X backpedals violently and now there is a chorus against the LP which previously was all great and Organic, they usually go like that : It is is OK "for a digital" but LP release from xxxx is indeed superior ...
I have been wishing for the improbable for a while : For Person Z an analog-lover to just say that he/she found the LP good in spite of its, now known, origins . A little bit of candor once in a while ...

Is it asking for too much ?

Frantz,

here is the problem with feedback on this subject. it all depends on one's reference.

most would agree that the best sounding Beatles Lps for the releases cronologically thru Sargent Pepper's are the Parlaphone Original Mono pressings. so if you are asking how good these new Lp pressings are then whoever is speaking needs to have those as references for most of the Albums and a mono cartridge to play them on to hear what they can do.

if your reference is the Stereo UK OP's or USA Capitol OP's pressings then that is different.

if one's reference is the MOFI box set, or other later pressings then you are getting another different viewpoint.

i think you need to approach this current 44/16 sourced Lp re-issue from another perspective. does it sound better than the Beatles re-issued digital box sets, both mono and stereo? does it sound better than the 24 bit download of those files?

if it does improve on those digital CD's or files then it is worth purchasing for the vinyl lover who does not have early pressings.

the other big question would be is it better than the MOFi box set?.....which can be purchased easily.

personally; i have a few Parlaphone mono original pressings, a number of box sets incluing the MOFI, the UHQR Sgt. Peppers, both CD box sets, the 24 bit download, and a few misc. pressings. i don't plan on buying this box set or even listening to it. i cannot see what it holds for me.

 

[mep]

Frantz-I should have a "C" on my chest for 'Candor Man.' However, I don't own nor have I heard any of the new digital vinyl Beatle LPs.

 

[XV-1]

I find with the bass eq that the engineers have applied to the album - especially noticable in the early albums the sound is fuller and smoother with less forwardness but at the same time cleaner.
After playing and listening to the beatles albums for 30 years, this change can be a bit difficult to get used to - hence a lot of the negative opinions as it is difficult NOT to compare with what you own and know well.

The earlier albums have less edge which can make them seem a little boring at first. Piano and keyboards expecially sound better/fuller on the new re-issues. After you get past the fundamental differences on the new mastering, they are good - abeit different. ps - I do not have the CD remasters so for some this is deja vu

I played Abbey Road the other night and that is more similar to the original mixes and really enjoyable. More details through the midrange to me.

I am happy I got the box set as I look upon it as a completely new set of mixes to complement the existing Beatles LP's I all ready own.

BTW - I have the Euro set. the outer sleeve comes off and on very easily, unlike what Fremer says re the US box set. the box itself is high quality, the book is absolutely magnificent, the vinyl pressings are flat and quiet.

enjoy

 

[XV-1]

Interesting over at sh forums. Sean Magee, the actual engineer who cut the remastered Beatles albums to vinyl has clarified a few details regarding the vinyl remasters.

No, I meant 24/44.1. I can't answer why your waveforms show what they do. Bear in mind also that the SX74 cutter head only goes up to 24kHz, and any cutting engineer would not want content at higher frequencies at any significant level going to the cutter head. 10kHz - 20kHz -- It's dangerous, the cutter gets hot, very hot. Hence the term...."Hot Cut"

2009 remasters- tapes transfered to 24/192 , fixes etc done (declick denoise 24/96), eqing done at 24/44.1 then limited for cd.

The source here is the stage before the limiting. Extra "stuff" done for vinyl, was both analog and digital, depending on what the problem was. De essing was done using cedar retouch so that only the portion on the "s" that was problematic was affected rather than having a de esser in circut. Anything done to assist the cut was kept to an absolute minimum. There you have it.



. 2009
192/24 - - - analog eq(emi TG and Prism MEA-2) -----D-A-----sadie (24/44.1).

sadie 24/44.1 ----junger limiter-----sadie (24/44.1)

sadie 24/44.1 -------prism ad124 truncation/noise shaping-----sadie 16/44.1


signal chains as above.


declick and denoise 96kHz (cedar)...declicked sections upsampled, edited back in...a click is typically micro seconds long,....some very intricate editing.

I have work to do, so I wish you all the best
kind regards
Sean

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Sorry but I can not see anything great in this type of situations. The Beatles recordings are very processed and is just one the cases where the aim of the recording is to spread the artists intentions, not the live performances, and personal preference will dominate the choice of what we consider best. I can not understand how mistakes of people induced by misinformation in these conditions can make some one happy.

Here you go, Micro

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frantz,

here is the problem with feedback on this subject. it all depends on one's reference.

most would agree that the best sounding Beatles Lps for the releases cronologically thru Sargent Pepper's are the Parlaphone Original Mono pressings. so if you are asking how good these new Lp pressings are then whoever is speaking needs to have those as references for most of the Albums and a mono cartridge to play them on to hear what they can do.

if your reference is the Stereo UK OP's or USA Capitol OP's pressings then that is different.

if one's reference is the MOFI box set, or other later pressings then you are getting another different viewpoint.

i think you need to approach this current 44/16 sourced Lp re-issue from another perspective. does it sound better than the Beatles re-issued digital box sets, both mono and stereo? does it sound better than the 24 bit download of those files?

if it does improve on those digital CD's or files then it is worth purchasing for the vinyl lover who does not have early pressings.

the other big question would be is it better than the MOFi box set?.....which can be purchased easily.

personally; i have a few Parlaphone mono original pressings, a number of box sets incluing the MOFI, the UHQR Sgt. Peppers, both CD box sets, the 24 bit download, and a few misc. pressings. i don't plan on buying this box set or even listening to it. i cannot see what it holds for me.

I seriously doubt that. Most vinylphiles might say that. Most Beatles fans would say the remasters are the best-sounding Beatles releases. Some prefer the mono to the stereo. You live in rarified air, there, Mike. If you only talk to analog audiophiles you're good. Most people probably actually disagree with you.

But haven't we already had this conversation?

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I seriously doubt that. Most vinylphiles might say that. Most Beatles fans would say the remasters are the best-sounding Beatles releases. Some prefer the mono to the stereo. You live in rarified air, there, Mike. If you only talk to analog audiophiles you're good. Most people probably actually disagree with you.

But haven't we already had this conversation?

Tim

Tim,

respectfully; i'm not sure exactly what you are referring to with the 'i seriously doubt that'.

the view about the respect for mono pressings of the early Beatles albums?

that this new Lp box set only needs to be better than the digital.

that there are different viewpoints based on one's reference.

i don't see any of those views as elitist. sorry if i'm not getting your point.

Mike

added edit;

re-reading your post i see that my perspective on the early mono's is what you are referring to.

i was not any sort of mono lover on early Beatles Lps until i heard one compared to good early stereo versions. it's not close. the stereo is mostly ping pong anyway for these albums.

there are many fans of the Beatles Lps who don'y consider themselves audiophiles who prefer the mono's. and i would say that of those people who have an interest and have investigated it, most prefer the monos.

that is just my opinion as to how most Lp listening Beatles fans view things.

i would also say if you came to my home and we played my mono Revolver or Rubber Soul and i did not tell you that it was mono, you would have no clue. it's that good.

 

[rbbert]

Speaking for Tim, after reading each of your posts, it appears he extrapolated from your actual words, apparently incorrectly. His post suggests he is referring to the population at large, or even just of music and Beatles lovers, whereas you are specifically referring to people who listen to LP's.

Now each of you may have actually meant something different, but that's what your words say.