What sampling / bit rate would equal vinyl?

[Phelonious Ponk]

Does this mean you do like at least one version of the 2009 remasters (since the post you responded to clearly did not )

They are the best Beatles recordings I've owned, including the original Capitol/Apple vinyls. I have the mono and the stereo sets. For the most part I prefer the stereo, but some of the early records are better in the mono remasters and are pretty dramatically improved over anything else I've owned. As you get into the later material -- The White Album, Abbey Road -- the gap is a lot narrower, but I still like the remasters better.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

They are the best Beatles recordings I've owned, including the original Capitol/Apple vinyls. I have the mono and the stereo sets. For the most part I prefer the stereo, but some of the early records are better in the mono remasters and are pretty dramatically improved over anything else I've owned. As you get into the later material -- The White Album, Abbey Road -- the gap is a lot narrower, but I still like the remasters better.

Tim

You probably should listen to the 24/44.1 versions, most people who have (including me) prefer them to the CD's

 

[mep]

Tim-Did you ever own any of the EMI Parlaphone Beatle LPs or did you always have the American versions? I never cared for any of the American versions of the Beatle LPs. Back in the day when you had a turntable, how much love and care went into the setup? Did you own a cartridge protractor to set up your cartridge or did you use the Thorens template? I owned a Thorens table once and I was never happy with it. It wasn't one of their better models. It had a servo that was constantly looking for the right speed and could never find it. When AR released an upgrade of their original table, I bought one with a Sumiko MMT arm and this was what I consider to be the first really high-end table I owned. I dumped the Thorens and was happy to be rid of it. The old Thorens TD-124 has acheived some measure of cult status like the Garrard 301 and 401. I'm not tempted though.

 

[MylesBAstor]

They are the best Beatles recordings I've owned, including the original Capitol/Apple vinyls. I have the mono and the stereo sets. For the most part I prefer the stereo, but some of the early records are better in the mono remasters and are pretty dramatically improved over anything else I've owned. As you get into the later material -- The White Album, Abbey Road -- the gap is a lot narrower, but I still like the remasters better.

Tim

Apple pressings are decidedly inferior to the Parlophone issues.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-Did you ever own any of the EMI Parlaphone Beatle LPs or did you always have the American versions? I never cared for any of the American versions of the Beatle LPs. Back in the day when you had a turntable, how much love and care went into the setup? Did you own a cartridge protractor to set up your cartridge or did you use the Thorens template? I owned a Thorens table once and I was never happy with it. It wasn't one of their better models. It had a servo that was constantly looking for the right speed and could never find it. When AR released an upgrade of their original table, I bought one with a Sumiko MMT arm and this was what I consider to be the first really high-end table I owned. I dumped the Thorens and was happy to be rid of it. The old Thorens TD-124 has acheived some measure of cult status like the Garrard 301 and 401. I'm not tempted though.

American versions only. When I bought my Thorens, I was working in a hifi shop (what we called them back then when the earth was a mass of gasses). The tech there set it up for me. I had it tweaked several times throughout its life, every time I changed cartridges and a few more, but I never got into doing that myself. But I seriously doubt if I was getting the most from the Thorens that it could deliver, or that the Thorens was state of the art, even then, when it gave its best. That's not the point. I have OCD analog friends with obscenely expensive, highly tweaked vinyl rigs, and I've heard Beatles records on their systems. I don't know if they were English or American pressings, but it really doesn't matter. Vinyl has a sound. We all know this. Some love the sound to the point that they hear it, with all it's technical flaws, as more "natural" than even the best digital. I'm not in that camp. I love analog recordings, but I don't like what vinyl does to them, regardless of how good the vinyl rig and set up is, so I will, naturally, prefer the CD remasters. MHO. YMMV. My guess is that if these remasters were available on vinyl, the vinylfiles woule prefer them as well, even over the old Parlaphone pressings. They were a labor of love into which went an awful lot of care and work. I can't imagine that they aren't better (of course I guess that's pretty subjective...) masters than the originals, regardless of the reproduction medium.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

...They were a labor of love into which went an awful lot of care and work. I can't imagine that they aren't better (of course I guess that's pretty subjective...) masters than the originals, regardless of the reproduction medium.

Tim

I would definitely agree with this opinion, possible tape wear over the years notwithstanding.

 

[MylesBAstor]

My guess is that if these remasters were available on vinyl, the vinylfiles woule prefer them as well, even over the old Parlaphone pressings. They were a labor of love into which went an awful lot of care and work. I can't imagine that they aren't better (of course I guess that's pretty subjective...) masters than the originals, regardless of the reproduction medium.

Tim

C'mon Tim that's the same tired, fallacious reasoning that's been repeated over and over again since the dawn of digital. Analog people have a vested interest in their records; analog lovers have a monetary interest in their record, etc.. BS! All most of us are interested in (and music too) is the BEST sounding media available. Period. If digital sounded like real music to me, I'd have sunk that 30+K I've invested in my R2R and analog front end into SOTA a digital front-end. Simple. End of story.

And as a matter of fact, I invested a not so small amount (10 K) in a digital front-end and found it over the long run, musically unsatisfying. And this was the best of what I heard. Sure things have changed, but both analog and digital, not to mention R2R have still gotten better.

 

[rbbert]

C'mon Tim that's the same tired, fallacious reasoning that's been repeated over and over again since the dawn of digital. Analog people have a vested interest in their records; analog lovers have a monetary interest in their record, etc.. BS! All most of us are interested in (and music too) is the BEST sounding media available. Period. If digital sounded like real music to me, I'd have sunk that 30+K I've invested in my R2R and analog front end into SOTA a digital front-end. Simple. End of story.

And as a matter of fact, I invested a not so small amount (10 K) in a digital front-end and found it over the long run, musically unsatisfying. And this was the best of what I heard. Sure things have changed, but both analog and digital, not to mention R2R have still gotten better.

I could be wrong, but I would mean (and Tim might have) that the working digital masters probably sound better than any previous production masters, which has nothing to do with whether any currently available LP's sound better or worse than the digitally released versions of the 2009 remasters.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I could be wrong, but I would mean (and Tim might have) that the working digital masters probably sound better than any previous production masters, which has nothing to do with whether any currently available LP's sound better or worse than the digitally released versions of the 2009 remasters.

You know I really don't know or trust the major labels when they're mastering. I'd like to think that they've improved their digital gear in the studio, but I really don't know. Money comes first, sound comes last. Crank it out and keep the budget down.

 

[rbbert]

You know I really don't know or trust the major labels when they're mastering. I'd like to think that they've improved their digital gear in the studio, but I really don't know. Money comes first, sound comes last. Crank it out and keep the budget down.

Not in dispute, but I think that if any artists' recordings might be exceptions to that it would be the Beatles.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Not in dispute, but I think that if any artists' recordings might be exceptions to that it would be the Beatles.

One would hope but we've been disappointed before. The Stones recent reissues were reportedly nothing to write home about.

 

[JackD201]

I imagine it's a tricky thing remastering modern classics. I mean these are albums that are extremely beloved by at least a couple of generations just for being what they are. The saying don't mess with a classic I think applies strongly here. I'd imagine that those doing remastering must be just a little bit gun shy resulting in albums whose "enhancements" are subtle at best. This is one job I seriously don't want to have.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I imagine it's a tricky thing remastering modern classics. I mean these are albums that are extremely beloved by at least a couple of generations just for being what they are. The saying don't mess with a classic I think applies strongly here. I'd imagine that those doing remastering must be just a little bit gun shy resulting in albums whose "enhancements" are subtle at best. This is one job I seriously don't want to have.

I think the problem is that the remastering engineers think they have better equipment today and feel compelled to muck with the recording After all, they have to justify buying all those expensive toys. And the latest is autotune

 

[rbbert]

There are some Classic Records remasters/reissues of a number of old Bert Whyte (engineer) recorded albums on Everest, available as CD, 24/96 and 24/192 digital files, and (perhaps) LP's; there are also probably some good condition old LP's of these albums around as well. Comparing those different versions would give some more information on the originally posted question.

 

[MylesBAstor]

There are some Classic Records remasters/reissues of a number of old Bert Whyte (engineer) recorded albums on Everest, available as CD, 24/96 and 24/192 digital files, and (perhaps) LP's; there are also probably some good condition old LP's of these albums around as well. Comparing those different versions would give some more information on the originally posted question.

And Harry Weisfeld probably has many of the master, if not second generation Bert Whyte tapes To me the true test is whether a digital copy is indistinguishable from the master tape

I have some hope that the hi rez d/l will eliminate the sonic degradation I've heard in going from the hard drive to the final CD, SACD, etc.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

C'mon Tim that's the same tired, fallacious reasoning that's been repeated over and over again since the dawn of digital. Analog people have a vested interest in their records; analog lovers have a monetary interest in their record, etc.. BS! All most of us are interested in (and music too) is the BEST sounding media available. Period. If digital sounded like real music to me, I'd have sunk that 30+K I've invested in my R2R and analog front end into SOTA a digital front-end. Simple. End of story.

And as a matter of fact, I invested a not so small amount (10 K) in a digital front-end and found it over the long run, musically unsatisfying. And this was the best of what I heard. Sure things have changed, but both analog and digital, not to mention R2R have still gotten better.

I wasn't making any argument at all, Myles, I was just saying that I suspect these are the best masters of The Beatles catalog that have been made. They have, at least, substantially more time and care invested in them, and they were done, not for a quick commercial release, but for a discriminating audience after many years of complaints about the quality of the originals. My comment had nothing to do with digital vs vinyl. I wish these masters were available on vinyl, because I'd bet the farm that they are superior to all that preceded them and wish you vinylphiles could hear them in your preferred medium.

Enjoy the music.

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-They are supposed to release a vinyl set cut from the digital masters.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think the problem is that the remastering engineers think they have better equipment today and feel compelled to muck with the recording After all, they have to justify buying all those expensive toys. And the latest is autotune

I think the problem is sheer commercial interest exacerbated by fashion. The loudness wars began as an attempt to make recordings cut through the noisy environment in which most people listen to their iPods through open ear buds. Record companies decided they liked it, that louder would get more attention, draw more interest, and it escalated into the fashionable thing to do, then the thing that all were compelled to do to keep from falling into the background of the blare. Still, an awful lot of music has barely been affected, and if you don't listen to a lot of commercial pop, you won't have to put up with it much. The Beatles remasters are not brick-walled, by the way. They don't have a ton of dynamic range, but they never did.

The loudness wars are not new, by the way. This is just the latest battle. There was plenty of compression of singles, so they would cut through the clutter on the radio and be heard loud, if not clear, on car radios with the widows rolled down, going all the way back to the 50s (Phil Spector's classic records were very compressed). Then, as now, it was mostly limited to pop. Jazz and classical never suffered from the syndrome. It's so popular now, though, that it has seeped into some less popular forms, but thankfully in a very toned-down version. You won't find many truly brick-walled recordings in Bluegrass, Americana, Folk, Traditional Country, Jazz, Blues, etc. The last couple of "new" artists I discovered -- Ray LaMontagne and Madeline Peroux, have some beautifully produced and mastered records. They are a bit louder than pre-"loudness wars" era recordings, but not enough to crush the dynamics, and they suffer from none of the treble-juiced harshness that is so common on pop records. Because this wave of bad mastering is focused mostly on pop records, I remain personally and happily unaffected. Seldom has painfully unhip been so lucky.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-They are supposed to release a vinyl set cut from the digital masters.

Good move.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

There is one recording that I really care, as it was my first Genesis album, called Foxtrot. During the few years after its launch I listened to it hundreds times, and still really enjoy it.

Some years ago, in a moment of laziness, I bought the CD version. I was really disappointed - the CD version lacked the rhythm of the two vinyl versions I owned. Unhappily something similar happens with the masterpiece The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - the Carpet Crawlers loose their waving rhythm and just crawled flat ...

Since then, every time I want to present these magnificent works to youngsters such as my son and his friends I use the LP version - success guaranteed.

I accept that recording engineers of that time tailored the sound to sound better in vinyl systems, exploiting its characteristics. But why can not our current engineers make a digitally remastered version with similar rhythm and real dynamics?