Just been surfing the net on info regarding The Beatles remasters. Looks very similar to Oh, By The Way. I can't see myself getting it in September, so I will attempt to get it for christmas / birthday (I was born in Jan). Hopefully (pray, pray, pray) that it won't have the over inflated rip off price like the current (if it still is) boxset.

The perfect companion to Oh, By The Way.

I don't like the concept of remasters at all. It's just record companies trying to cash in on a forty year old success all over again. If you want the best sound you can, get the original vinyl pressings and a decent turntable, not an overcompressed commercial release made by people who are only interested in profits.

Hello Robosteve (HAL)

I take it you've had trouble with remasters before. Looks like you're a big vinyl fan who still enjoys the sound coming from a turntable. That's fine; you're obviously a real collector of music.
Unfortunataly not all of us can afford the original or any vinyl pressings especially Beatles albums. The so called remaster series of albums from the 1990's were a waste of money, achieving little improved sound quality (probably due to lack of technology). However today's technology has come a long way improving sound quality plus the people involved with this Beatles remaster series have been spending 4 years doing it, so making the profit wouldn't be the number one reason to do it. Plus I want my children to experience the music of the Beatles (and PF) through the best possible sound reproduction.
Now, Blue Ray is one of the biggest technology scams ever!

The recent remasters of Yes albums are a vast improvement over the sound quality of their 80s "remasters", and you can definitely hear a difference and seeing as I didn't own any previously (though my parents did) they were the perfect buy.

Sun Controller Wrote:Now, Blue Ray is one of the biggest technology scams ever!

This is bollocks, Blu-ray is brilliant for two reasons:

1. HD films in 1080p are fantastic compared with SD, watching films like "Transformers" in HD is epic.

2. PlayStation 3 games use BDs instead of DVDs (like the Xbox 360) which means alot more can be stored on a single disc, making some games only possible on the PS3; "Metal Gear Solid 4", "LittleBigPlanet" & "Heavy Rain" to name a few which their developers praise Blu-ray for making them possible.

Hats off to Sony and Pioneer for Blu-ray.

Sun Controller Wrote:I take it you've had trouble with remasters before. Looks like you're a big vinyl fan who still enjoys the sound coming from a turntable. That's fine; you're obviously a real collector of music.

I haven't really had trouble with them before, I just don't think classic albums should be remastered using new technology because the bands honed them down to the way they wanted them to sound back then. Half the band isn't even alive today, so what you're getting with a remaster isn't the artist's intention, quite apart from anything else. At least with the original mix you know the band sat for hours in the studio getting it the way they wanted it to sound - the real deal, if you will.

Sun Controller Wrote:Unfortunataly not all of us can afford the original or any vinyl pressings especially Beatles albums.

I can't either at this point, so I settle for downloading Dr. Ebbetts bootlegs of Beatles stuff, and similar vinyl rips of other artists from that era.

Sun Controller Wrote:The so called remaster series of albums from the 1990's were a waste of money, achieving little improved sound quality (probably due to lack of technology). However today's technology has come a long way improving sound quality plus the people involved with this Beatles remaster series have been spending 4 years doing it, so making the profit wouldn't be the number one reason to do it. Plus I want my children to experience the music of the Beatles (and PF) through the best possible sound reproduction.

I don't think there was a lack of technology at all. Some of the best sounding albums ever were released on vinyl during the 1970s - consider the workmanship in the mixing of the original Alan Parsons quadraphonic mix of The Dark Side of the Moon. I don't know why the 90s Beatles remasters sounded the way they did, but I can only suppose that whoever was doing it didn't have their heart in it, and were only doing it to make a quick buck or two.

In my view, the best possible sound reproduction would be to produce CDs directly from the original master tapes used to create the LP releases, with no additional mastering involved. In particular, they should make a CD re-release of the Sgt. Pepper's mono mix - I have heard it, and it is truly fantastic. That album was not intended for stereo, and definitely not intended to be remastered forty years later.

Sun Controller Wrote:Now, Blue Ray is one of the biggest technology scams ever!

Actually, it has the potential to work very well if used to its full potential. But I do think that it should only be used for new albums/films recorded specifically for Blu-Ray, or older albums like The Dark Side of the Moon made directly from the original stereo or quadraphonic master tapes - none of this 5.1 SACD "let's turn David's guitar up as loud as we can" nonsense.

I admit I was a bit hasty with the scam of Blue Ray. Mainly they are way over priced (to the point of being a rip off)and they are supposed to hold far more information than a standard DVD. They may do it for computer games, but not for movies. Yes you get better picture quality, but you can store a lot more information on it. Example, You could at least store all the Pirates of the Caribeaen movies on ONE blue ray disc. You don't need 3.
Yes I've heard the SACD of DSOTM. No real difference there. SACD is works well if you're making an album NOW.
Now I would only buy a LCD TV and blue ray player if I won the lottery. I'm waiting for it to be sensibly priced, with it's advantages used to it's full potential.

Sun Controller Wrote:I admit I was a bit hasty with the scam of Blue Ray. Mainly they are way over priced (to the point of being a rip off)and they are supposed to hold far more information than a standard DVD. They may do it for computer games, but not for movies. Yes you get better picture quality, but you can store a lot more information on it. Example, You could at least store all the Pirates of the Caribeaen movies on ONE blue ray disc. You don't need 3.
Yes I've heard the SACD of DSOTM. No real difference there. SACD is works well if you're making an album NOW.
Now I would only buy a LCD TV and blue ray player if I won the lottery. I'm waiting for it to be sensibly priced, with it's advantages used to it's full potential.

CDs are also overpriced, people are just used to paying that price. At any major music retailer here, a CD normally costs around $25 (Australian dollars). However, there are a couple of stores down in central Sydney which will sell you the exact same CD for $10. That means that the music industry is keeping well over half of the money you pay every time you buy a CD.

I want to clear something up right now: Transformers should not be counted as a good movie. It is not quality film making, it is not epic. This must be said. It is entertaining, yes, but it is marketing tripe. Just look closely, it's a two and a half hour General Motors advertisement.

Moving on. Steve said it right when he advocated listening to the original version in an analog format. You will not have a better listening experience than the vinyl LP.

I've got Beatle, Floyd, Who, and Zep LP's, and to me they are better than the remasters.

Remastered CDs are convenient. You can play them in yr car. Besides, decent record players cost upwards of $200 at the least over here, if you're lucky. And, to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less about the sound quality, unless it sounds really tinny. Therefore, I'll stick to good ol' compact discs 'n' mp3s, thanks.