Beatles Remasters on Vinyl, part 3, etc.

Honestly I'm overwellmed by the talk these are NO GOOD before they even come out.

Steve ==Please explain why Digital LP's may not be good sound
Thanks

 

Even through you tubed phono preamp?

 

I'm not Steve, but as I said previously, my issue is not that they are digitally sourced, but that they feature the same "restoration" that the CDs did.

 

On reflection, I would be interested if the were cut from the unfutzed 192/24bit digitals.


But IMHO, the only thing that needed doing to the whole of the catalogue was to take out the thud in the mono and stereo "Run For Your Life".


Would have taken me four minutes not four years!

 

But do they? Nothing has been officially announced.

 

+1

 

I don't think anybody is saying that these will not be any good. It's just that they could have been great; as great as the original lps were.

These will very likely just be the cds pressed on vinyl with nice covers. And if you buy the box, you get a booklet.

 

and for those of us who love the synergy of vinyl, and love the Fabs, this is a huge disappointment. Some will like the new pressings. They will probably be quiet, and sound slightly "better" than the CDs. They could have been mindblowing...

I think the bigger issue is the "futzing" of the sound, rather than the digital issue (although that is a huge one for me)...if these were 24/192 digital copies of the master tapes with NO editing or changes, I would purchase them. There are much better ways to part with my money than this set.

 

Based on what facts? This thread is becoming very (I can't say it)........

 

They've always been futzed. Anyone with a reasonable, international vinyl collection will have a preference (e.g. for a start, the German MMT and some of those Canadian 1:1 cuts. There are others that escaped too). The UK Y/Bs might be definitive for some, but they sure aren't unprocessed (for the most part, anyway).

This new issue might be, depending on various technical details, OK.

 

Yes, every cutting engineer who has worked on these tapes has done something, and my point is it would have been fab to leave the tapes them as is and cut them with no changes...as nature intended

 

Seems to me that those who were waiting for the new vinyl were looking for a different experience than what the remastered CDs offer. Seems to me the Abbey Road people want a streamlined listening experience across the board for the catalog.

 

And, this is as good a place as any to repost one of the original interviews about the creation of the Beatles remasters"
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct09/articles/beatlesremasters.htm

 

did you expect anything less?

 

Do you really believe that all sound information, contained in a flat hi-res transfer from the original mastertape can be just directly pressed on a standart vinyl LP? So in other words, you believe that a dedicated vinyl mastering is useless and meaningless? A revolutionarry vision, I could say. You forget that vinyl have his own limitations.

 

You know guys, all it takes is money. If every SHTV forum member donates a billion clams to the cause, I'm sure mountains could be moved. We could also give the fabs funny hats on all the album covers.

 

I'm thinking about listing mine in the classifieds already!

 

You must be new here.

 

Good post. It seems to me that many people making judgements here don't fully understand. Do they want them to sound like the originals, do they want them to sound like the mastertape etc. if Steve Hoffman mastered these they wouldn't sound anything like the originals.

At this point there is nothing to suggest these won't sound great. The Stones set, which was digital, sounded excellent, so why won't these? 99% of people who buy these won't care, so they should just cater for 1%? I doubt many on here could tell the difference anyway with a great digitally sourced release done right, even Fremer has been caught out occasionally.

 

A slight detour...
I've always questioned the exact process for cutting the original LP's, so I wonder if somebody can clarify what the process was. Assuming the best/most simple stereo case (no four track reductions, etc.), my understanding was it happened as listed below:

1. 1" 30 ips two or four track tape of song recorded (live EQ/compression for "artistic" reasons only)
2. 1" two or four track tape of song mixed down to 1/4" 30ips two track tape
(possible additional EQ/compression for artistic reasons)
3. individual 1/4" 30 ips two track tape song sections physically spliced together as one reel for album
4. 1/4" 30 ips compiled reel is the master, and master is handed to the guy that runs the lathe
5. the guy running the lathe plays 1/4" reel through compressors/transient control equipment and applies standard (RIAA) pre-emphasis EQ/level adjustments for vinyl characteristics

Is this basically correct, or were intermediate copies of the compiled 1/4" master reel made with EQ applied with vinyl/radio playback in mind? Wasn't "mastering" for LP just the process described in #5 above? I've repeatedly heard people say that the recording engineers tweaked for the limitations of vinyl, but that doesn't seem right; it seems they'd go for best/full rsponse and let the guy at the lathe try to make the vinyl sound like the master tape he'd been given.
Part of what I'm getting at here is whether or not the Beatles' 1/4" masters, played back flat, are the sound that we were intended to hear.

 

Steamlined????

 

Well, that would be my greatest fear, cd quality vinyl. Michael Fremer did state this on his website and if accurate these vinyl copies will not be cd quality.

"So the box was mastered to lacquers at Abbey Road using the original 192k/24 bit files. Clearly these will sound far superior to the CD versions, just as the 44.1K/24 bit Apple USB "dongle" version sounded better than the CD.

No doubt the set will eventually be issued on Blu-ray at 192/24 bit and perhaps it will also be available as a full rez Internet download but nothing can replace the vinyl experience, physically and sonically given that Abbey Road's D/A converters are probably far superior to what most of us have at home—if we even have D/A converters in our systems (some vinyl purists do not)."

 

I'm thinking "why would it take them 3+ years to release LPs that are sonically identical to the CDs"? It just wouldn't make sense.

 

In a lot of cases an album needs more than just transfering from a master tape to make it sound good.

PM sent!