Got 'em! Beatles box sets are here!*

Certainly not what Allan Kozinn has reported.

 

Mebbe if Allan Kozinn and Bob Gendron told us what equipment they were using
the differing opinions would seem less startling. It might boil down to how many a/b shootouts they performed. Who knows?

If these discs don't make me want to turn the treble down, my day is essentially made.

 

Thanks for the review. Biggest thing for music lovers in a looooooooong time. Enjoy them...............before the rest of us can.

 

Duh. Ok, I forgot these are promos.

Anyone want to lay bets that none have numbers on them?

 

I think that these are going to be definite improvements and worth buying. One at a time, unfortunately, for me!

 

As he pointed out in the review, those of you that are the ultimate Beatles' fanatics, will all have plenty to argue about amongst yourselves...

What I completely agree with him on is that these discs are

a: Considerably better than the 87 versions on CD
b: Consistantly high quality overall

I suppose if we spent a month doing album by album shootouts with ten major pressings of each album we could find some deficiencies. But then we'd never get any other work done.

I think for someone who would like an excellent set of Beatles' recordings, these are fantastic.

 

Here's what I'm listening to em on and I agree wholeheartedly with Bob:

CD player: Naim CD555 w/PS 555
Preamp: Burmester 011
Power Amp: Burmester 911mk. 3
Speakers: Gamut S-7's

And the other system I've listened to a few on:

CD player: Wadia 781i
Preamp: Nagra PLL
Power Amp: McIntosh MC1.2kw's
Speakers: Martin Logan CLX w/JL Audio Gotham sub

So far, I'm pretty darn impressed with the sound quality.

 

Well go ahead, your day is made. Based upon the wav samples I heard of Pepper. You won't need to turn down the treble.

 

I just downloaded the WAV samples from the Beatledrops site, burned them to CD and listened to it twice on my main stereo. You certainly won't need to turn your treble down IMO.

As unfair as it was to compare the vinyl to the 1987 and 2009 CDs, I was surprised with the results. My favorite in all three cases was the 1987 CD. The vinyl has that nice warmth, but didn't completely do it for me, though I liked it more than the 2009 remaster. It was warmer, sounded more alive. The remaster sounded rather dull and processed next to the other two in the upper frequencies. It certainly isn't loud, but I don't know if they matched the levels or not, I assume they didn't.

I invite others to compare these samples on their main rig and post their results.

 

So no negative points then?

 

But then again, he said he owns only 30,000 CDs or so, so maybe he doesn't have enough experience? And hasn't he written only ONE Beatles book?

 

Those who are looking for something to complain about will surely find it.

You and I will dig them just fine.

 

As I said, I think anyone comparing these to other masters are going to have things they like and don't like. If these would have been compressed, bright or lacking in some other way, there would be something negative to say. I wouldn't have minded perhaps fancier packaging....

 

Nice thorough review. Thanks.
Of course there will be naysayers and pickers looking for the smallest of nits even if it only exists in their mind.
Plus, I love that the reviewer had the balls to say what I've been waiting to hear:
Ahem, hi resolution masters render the vinyl ob-so-lete.
Is it finally time to give up on Tommy Edison and his wax and needles and belts?
Limited dynamic range and a noise floor that's more like a ceiling?
I think not though.
There will be many posts about vinyl still being king.

 

At its best, compared to the best of any other format, vinyl is king.

 

The remastered cds are 16 bit digital, they are not high resolution.

 

To me, commenting on negative aspects of CDs/music is a positive thing. It's also honest. I feel the same way about reviews that are only negative. Just bashing something to bits ignores the positive aspects. There's good and bad in everything and sharing some of the bad can be just as useful as sharing the good. Sometimes the negative for one guy is a positive for someone else and vice versa.

 

Absolutely true IME

 

I compared the digital clips on my main system as well and I also preferred the '87 masters. I thought the midrange was more life-like on the '87, even if the bottom was tighter on the '09. '09 seems warmer, too - high end tamed a bit compared to the '87. But really...apples and oranges.

Should be interesting when I get the remasters, but I'll enjoy the music on them well before getting too analytical.

 

Reading some of you preferring the 87 stuff just makes my jaw drop all the way...
So it seems all this new remastering thing was kind of useless?

 

The key is "at it's best" - not a common scenario these days for most.

 

"

 

We knew this was coming since the day they were announced…there were jokes about it all the way back in April. Some people just can't be pleased. Some—not all—of these are the same folks who were crying about how flat and lifeless and bass-less the 1987 CDs were for years.

 

Absolutely not, you let your OWN ears be the judge. What you read here are just individual opinions. You may just love these discs. Don't let anyone sway your decision, listen for yourself !

 

I'm very excited about the new remasters but a couple of thoughts arise:

1. How long before I shell out another $200 to buy the 24/192 BluRay versions? Do I get a discount having bought many SACDs?

2. How long will it be before the LPs show up? Will this be before or after I drop another $100 on early British pressings?